A study claiming that YouTube costs them ONE BEEEELION DOLLARS a year,
by having DMCA safe harbours!
writeup: https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-helps-youtube-avoid-up-to-1bn-in-royalties-pe…
study: http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB41Final.pdf
The conceit here is the music industry claiming that YouTube should
pay them money that they literally know YouTube isn't taking in, on an
assured basis as they do with Spotify.
They have been smart enough to explicitly name Wikipedia as the sort
of organisation they don't want to hurt. Wikimedians, of course, know
better than to trust the IP industry with anything. This "study" is
getting hyped in the industry press today; if it comes to anything, it
*may* be worth Wikimedia commenting.
- d.
Forwading.
---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
De: "María Sefidari" <msefidari(a)wikimedia.org>
Fecha: 29 mar. 2017 15:06
Asunto: Wikimedia Foundation's commitment around our environmental impact
Para: <WMFall(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, <wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>,
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
Hi everyone,
Since early 2015, the Wikimedia Foundation has been evaluating efforts
and engaging in discussions related to the environmental impact of the
movement, and specifically the Foundation. During that time, we
supported improvements to our on-wiki documentation,[1] talked with
members of the community, and began reviewing internal processes.
The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to finding ways to reduce the
impact of our activities on the environment. We aim to always act as
responsibly and sustainably as possible, including favoring renewable
energy where it is available for our operations.
To help clarify and solidify our intentions in this important matter,
the Board of Trustees has passed an environmental impact
resolution.[2] This resolution commits the Wikimedia Foundation to:
1. Seek out information about our overall impact on the environment
and then work to minimize it;
2. Consider sustainability as an important part of decisions around
servers, operations, travel, offices, and other procurement;
3. Use green energy where it is available and a prudent use of resources;
and
4. Starting in 2018, include an environmental impact statement in our
annual plan.
We appreciate the input of the nearly 200 Wikimedians that have
already spoken to this in on Meta-Wiki,[1] and hope that you will join
future efforts to minimize any negative impacts on the environment.
Thank you!
Kind regards,
María and Christophe
María Sefidari, Board Vice Chair, Wikimedia Foundation
Christophe Henner, Board Chair, Wikimedia Foundation
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_Initiative
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Environmental_Impact
Hi, Everybody.
We are reaching out to any Wikimedians or WMF staffers that might be at the
Wikimedia mothership in San Francisco today. We are meeting at Noisebridge
hackerspace/makerspace (near 16th ST BART in SF) tonight and everybody is
invited.
Details and RSVP (helps us figure out the food and if you need any special
food or have special needs):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bay_Area_WikiSalon_March_2017
(RSVP is optional, but encouraged)
Hope to see you there! Wayne Calhoon (co-organizer)
925-899-4051
on the german wikipedia there was a poll to ban images of users who
send cease and desist letters, triggered by a recent case of thomas
wolf trying to charge 1200 euro out of a tiny non-profit which
improperly reused one of his images [1]. thomas article work includs
"improving text deserts, and changing bad images to (often his own)
better quality images"[2]. there is a broad majority against people
who use cease and desist letters as a business model. anyway a small
number of persons do have such a business model, some of them even
administrators on commons, like alexander savin [3][4].
but the topic of course is much more subtle than described above, the
discussion was heated, and the result close - as always in the last 10
years. a digital divide between persons supporting the original
mindset of wikipedia which sees every additional reuse, unrestricted,
as success, and the ones who think it is not desired to incorrectly
reference, or feel that others should not make money out of their
work.
as both are viable opinions would it be possible to split commons in
two, for every opinion? the new commons would include safe licenses
like cc-4.0 and users who are friendly to update their licenses to
better ones in future. the old commons would just stay as it is. a
user of wikipedia can easy distinguish if she wants to include both
sources, or only one of them? there is only one goal: make cease and
desist letters as business model not interesting any more,
technically, while keeping the morale of contributors high, both
sides.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/keine_Bilder_in_Arti…
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/Der_Wolf_im_Wald
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:A.Savin
[4] https://tarnkappe.info/ausgesprochen-peinlich-abmahnfalle-wikipedia-intervi…
best
rupert