User talk:Power2All
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Lectonar 14:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Animesuki
[edit]From Wikipedia:Copyrights:
Linking to copyrighted works However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.
From Wikipedia:External links:
For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception. Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.
Websites like Animesuki and its trackers, which are "illegally distributing" japanese anime and are "violating the copyrights" of the said anime (see ? I did not say that they are illegal websites, just to please you. They are policy-violating), cannot be linked on Wikipedia. And this is "without exception".
Thus the links you've re-added will be deleted, and deleted again if you try to re-insert them (and if you persist, it might lead you to be blocked from editing).Folken de Fanel 13:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Of course, any anime, movie, book, any intellectual/artistic production is protected by the copyright. Even unlicenced anime are under copyright.
When an anime is unlicenced in a country, it doesn't mean that its creators are wipped from the face of the Earth. It only means there's no actual distribution in the said country. But the anime in question remain of course under the copyright, and remains the property of its creators.
The Bern Convention states that "Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention." .
Which means that any artistic work coming from a country inside the Berne union (ie a country that ratified the convention) is automatically granted, in all the other countries of the union, the same protection that the various countries give to their own, national, artistic works.
Currently, 163 countries have ratified the Convention, including Japan, the USA, UK (and all the countries in the UE), etc. Which means that anime coming from Japan and unlicenced for example in the USA or the UK, have the same copyright protection as if they were licenced. Thus downloading them and making fansubs is still illegal, it's still a copyright violation.
And to answer your last question, I think it's because Wikipedia servers are located in the USA.Folken de Fanel 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
3rd reply: sorry but it's not legal to distribute copyrighted material, without the owner's permission. Whether or not torrent files themselves aren't copyrighted (according to you), they still permit the user to illegally download, this is still a distribution. So I don't see the point in your argumentation: that's just your own hypocritic justification, even self-deception; but such reasonings won't hold in a court...
Now, I think, from a moral point of view, that many downloads and fansubs are acceptable (mostly fansubs of unpopular series that'll never go outside japan, or things so hyped up that it would not be fair for us to wait like 3 years more so that they could be licenced) that won't be licenced, however what I really don't like is when people like you who're distributing, are trying to avoid facing the consequences of their acts by finding all kind of warped reasoning like that...Why couldn't you just face the facts ? After all I'm not a judge, and I'm aware there are some circumstances that can't be ignored, I'm also aware of the laws and if I dowload i don't say to myself that it would be "legal"...But I really don't like this new fashion of downloading absolutely everything, and then saying it's "legal"...Folken de Fanel 09:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not a "victim" in anyway since WP isn't a promotional tool anyway. There are rules that every editor must respect on every article, and there's nothing more to add to it. We've enough debated about legality and illegality, you haven't even found anything to answer to what I previously said, so there's no "supposed illegality" of your tracker, it is illegal, and thus it can't be promoted on WP. There are many ways for you to advertise your trackers, but Wikipedia just isn't one of them.
Wikipedia hosts no website about Demonoid or anything, and is not affiliated to any of these sites anyway. However, not all articles were made according to the rules and they need to be modified also, and anyway it's not because a very limited number of articles violate the rules, escaping the vigilance of serious editors (there are thousands of articles here, so yes, it happens, and about many other subjects than illegal download) that these behavior can be accepted: Wikipedia articles are certainly not set in stone, they're always evolving, and what has been done can easily be undone.
If you feel you're a "victim" of Wikipedia's founding principles, then maybe it's just isn't for you. I really don't see what more could be said on the subject.Folken de Fanel 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Abunaicon
[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Abunaicon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Martijn Hoekstra 13:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Abunaicon, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Abunaicon satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abunaicon and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Abunaicon during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)