Talk:Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

It's not clear the case means what people say it means, or that it serves as any kind of precedent. Does anyone have a take on this?

This case was "dissolved and vacated" many years ago [1]. Lqp (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to reflect the permanent injunction. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the permanent injunction did dissolve and vacate the legal effects of the preliminary injunction on the defendants (replacing it with a new injunction), that doesn't mean that the case law is vacated. The court's order issuing the preliminary injunction is still good law, and it has been cited by other courts. I have updated the page to reflect this.

That said, however, this case is indeed frequently misunderstood, and this page should better explain what the court actually held (i.e., that Lighthouse, by posting links and other encouragement, had contributed to the infringing act of other people viewing the Church Handbook on their PCs (and thus making copies in RAM). NotSwedish (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an affected editor, I can state from experience that this page has been used as a tool, and a threat, to force reliably-sourced material out of at least one article, using its a) internal language inconsistencies ("page" vs. "site") and b) false, vague, and overbroad interpretation of the court's language in WP:LINKVIO. I asked about tightening the language, and a long-term and well-regarded editor replied, "I think this is one of those situations where ambiguous language is intentional." A month later, an involved editor accused me of "pursuing a site-wide policy change". In my opinion, there should be zero ambiguity: it's just bad for Wikipedia. Good luck in your quest. --Lexein (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This...

...is why the WMF needs to pack up and move the staff and the servers to Canada, Germany, or somewhere else with less... ahem.. cruddy copyright laws. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]