houseofgray.blogspot.com— I sent an email to the guys starting the class action suit and they responded in a rather unkind way. I put it all on my blog.
Dec 12, 2005View in Crawl 4
There's nothing wrong with that guy's response. The blogger here is an over-sensitive ass. I'd be pretty pissed if personal information about myself, business, and family were posted on any online website, positive or otherwise.Now, I imagine a few of you are frothing at the mouth screaming free speech at my post, but where do your rights to free speech stop, and my rights to privacy begin?The blogger is just whining to get his site on digg.
Busta - Actually it's not copyright infringement, and Wikipedia could not sue his pants off. While the logo is copied in its entirety, it is done so for purpose of criticism, commentary, and educating the public regarding a lawsuit. As a result, this falls within the boundaries of fair use set forth in the Copyright code.Specifically, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies ... for purposes such as criticism [or] comment ... is not an infringement of copyright." 17 USC 107.
The reply I got:"Hello,You don't know what you're talking about.So you're excused."I honestly think this is one huge troll. If so I am delighted. Good job!
To Whom It May Concern:I came across the information about your impending lawsuit against Wikipedia your site today and I am very disturbed. I understand that there have been cases of incorrect information being posted on the Wikipedia website, however there is no call for an action of this type. The developers makes no claims about the complete accuracy of any information found on Wikipedia. This is a site that is edited by the general public. That means everyone. While the editors strive to make sure that no one is placing false information on the site it is also up to us - the general public - to find these inaccuracies and edit them to correction. That is the whole basis of the site.The Wikipedia is one of the most unique and groundbreaking resources online. The ability to look up information about any subject and find what others like you have posted is very valuable. To be able to add material to an article that you may have knowledge is also very valuable. Google has made an empire on collecting the world's information and making it available to all the world. A very lofty and estimable goal. Wikipedia has done the same within the context of an online encyclopedia. However, instead of only having one view point written by an editor that may not have any first-hand knowledge of the subject we as readers have the ability to add to the richness of the content. We have the ability to add to the next user's experience.This is a great tool that we cannot afford to lose. Please, reconsider your course of action regarding this matter.Sincerely,My Namemyusername@gmail.comXXX-XXX-XXXX-----Hello,You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to sit this one out on the side.Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why should I be required to become a user and edit the content?I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments.Regards,-----Wow...that was fast...sounds like a form response to me...one of my friends got the exact same letter...I do understand the issues here, and it is not best for me to sit this one out on the side because I use Wikipedia a lot and do not wish for its dissolution (which will never happen).You do not have to become involved in the Wikipedia website. There is hardly ever offending or inaccurate content about anyone, their businesses or their families. The article which you refer to was an isolated incident turned wrong, via a self-thought prankster. If there is offending content, it is very likely that that content is true. You do not have to become a user of the website to edit the content of any article, you just have to become a new user to start a new article. This is because of the recent controversy.I thought you would be interested in my comments because you posted an email address on your website asking for comments. So I sent them.Awaiting your polite and personal response,My Namemyusername@gmail.comXXX-XXX-XXXX-----Hello,It was. Same ridiculous comments/questions, get the same reply.Not really interested in what you have to say because you do not know the facts relating to this matter and you could not because I have not shared them with you, but for some reason you feel that you are entitled to comment. Oh yeah, and before you spout on about freedom of speech, don't because it does not have anything to do with this issue.Regards,-----I really would like to have a conversation with you about this issue, because I would like to defend myself and my fellow "Wikipedians".I believe I am informed about all (or at least most of) the facts relating to this matter. Because you believe I could not understand this case because you have not shared certain facts with me, and because you believe therefore I am unentitled to comment, I want to learn your spin on the facts. Please share with me what facts you know that I do not.I never spouted on about the freedom of speech, although I do believe that it does have a place in this case and that it is relevant. Please share with me why it is not.Thank you,My Namemyusername@gmail.comXXX-XXX-XXXX-----the last email was sent last night at 1030est, and i have got no reply since. i will keep you all updated. what a retard...
I sent a similar email yesterday morning and got a similar response.I fixed some spelling errors in his response and apparantly he modified it to reflect those errors.I said that I didn't understand the principals involved. I assured him that he probably meant principles.Apparantly that word was too big for him, so he opted for issues.
zenchickDec 12, 2005
What you got was an automated response. Read the comments posted on the original story:<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/technology/Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit">http://digg.com/technology/Wikipedia_Class_Action_Lawsuit</a>
Closed AccountDec 13, 2005
DDoS THEM!!! QUICK ROBIN TO OUR ZOMBIE COMPUTER HORDES!!!-WOLF
kidlinuxDec 13, 2005
There's nothing wrong with that guy's response. The blogger here is an over-sensitive ass. I'd be pretty pissed if personal information about myself, business, and family were posted on any online website, positive or otherwise.Now, I imagine a few of you are frothing at the mouth screaming free speech at my post, but where do your rights to free speech stop, and my rights to privacy begin?The blogger is just whining to get his site on digg.
psytekDec 13, 2005
it's called the internet, it's your computer therefore it's your book. If you don't like it then just cancel your AOL subscription.
locojonesDec 13, 2005
Busta - Actually it's not copyright infringement, and Wikipedia could not sue his pants off. While the logo is copied in its entirety, it is done so for purpose of criticism, commentary, and educating the public regarding a lawsuit. As a result, this falls within the boundaries of fair use set forth in the Copyright code.Specifically, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies ... for purposes such as criticism [or] comment ... is not an infringement of copyright." 17 USC 107.
pantherxDec 13, 2005
The reply I got:"Hello,You don't know what you're talking about.So you're excused."I honestly think this is one huge troll. If so I am delighted. Good job!
yourmomDec 13, 2005
To Whom It May Concern:I came across the information about your impending lawsuit against Wikipedia your site today and I am very disturbed. I understand that there have been cases of incorrect information being posted on the Wikipedia website, however there is no call for an action of this type. The developers makes no claims about the complete accuracy of any information found on Wikipedia. This is a site that is edited by the general public. That means everyone. While the editors strive to make sure that no one is placing false information on the site it is also up to us - the general public - to find these inaccuracies and edit them to correction. That is the whole basis of the site.The Wikipedia is one of the most unique and groundbreaking resources online. The ability to look up information about any subject and find what others like you have posted is very valuable. To be able to add material to an article that you may have knowledge is also very valuable. Google has made an empire on collecting the world's information and making it available to all the world. A very lofty and estimable goal. Wikipedia has done the same within the context of an online encyclopedia. However, instead of only having one view point written by an editor that may not have any first-hand knowledge of the subject we as readers have the ability to add to the richness of the content. We have the ability to add to the next user's experience.This is a great tool that we cannot afford to lose. Please, reconsider your course of action regarding this matter.Sincerely,My Namemyusername@gmail.comXXX-XXX-XXXX-----Hello,You do not understand the issues here, so perhaps, it is best for you to sit this one out on the side.Why must I become involved in the Wikipedia website? If there is offending or inaccurate content, about me, my business or family, why should I be required to become a user and edit the content?I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments.Regards,-----Wow...that was fast...sounds like a form response to me...one of my friends got the exact same letter...I do understand the issues here, and it is not best for me to sit this one out on the side because I use Wikipedia a lot and do not wish for its dissolution (which will never happen).You do not have to become involved in the Wikipedia website. There is hardly ever offending or inaccurate content about anyone, their businesses or their families. The article which you refer to was an isolated incident turned wrong, via a self-thought prankster. If there is offending content, it is very likely that that content is true. You do not have to become a user of the website to edit the content of any article, you just have to become a new user to start a new article. This is because of the recent controversy.I thought you would be interested in my comments because you posted an email address on your website asking for comments. So I sent them.Awaiting your polite and personal response,My Namemyusername@gmail.comXXX-XXX-XXXX-----Hello,It was. Same ridiculous comments/questions, get the same reply.Not really interested in what you have to say because you do not know the facts relating to this matter and you could not because I have not shared them with you, but for some reason you feel that you are entitled to comment. Oh yeah, and before you spout on about freedom of speech, don't because it does not have anything to do with this issue.Regards,-----I really would like to have a conversation with you about this issue, because I would like to defend myself and my fellow "Wikipedians".I believe I am informed about all (or at least most of) the facts relating to this matter. Because you believe I could not understand this case because you have not shared certain facts with me, and because you believe therefore I am unentitled to comment, I want to learn your spin on the facts. Please share with me what facts you know that I do not.I never spouted on about the freedom of speech, although I do believe that it does have a place in this case and that it is relevant. Please share with me why it is not.Thank you,My Namemyusername@gmail.comXXX-XXX-XXXX-----the last email was sent last night at 1030est, and i have got no reply since. i will keep you all updated. what a retard...
databyssDec 13, 2005
I sent a similar email yesterday morning and got a similar response.I fixed some spelling errors in his response and apparantly he modified it to reflect those errors.I said that I didn't understand the principals involved. I assured him that he probably meant principles.Apparantly that word was too big for him, so he opted for issues.
wermerskochDec 13, 2005
I love wikipedia. Long live wikipedia.
beasty_dave_mk2Dec 13, 2005
"...I am interested to learn why you thought I would be interested in your comments...."lmao...SOmeone got a lil piss in their cornflakes this am.