Talk:GFDL and CC-BY-SA enforcement

Tone

Why is the tone of this piece so defensive? What is "vigilante" about protecting someone's own copyrights? In fact, I would find it very reasonable for Wikipedia to condemn and promote such grassroots efforts at enforcing the GFDL. In the long term, this can be more effective than a centralized effort. Daniel Varga

I think you mean commend. IANAL, but there are legal and ethical issues with Wikipedia using users as meatpuppets - any perception of influence by Wikipedia can have the charitable organisation drawn into legal battles it didn't start. But the users are free to do this themselves. Twilsonb 08:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that vigilante is not the correct term, since the page only suggests that people act through the legal process. I am removing the term. Superm401 | Talk 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DMCA Notices to Google

This is a goddamn retarded idea. It might be more efficient at preventing people from finding the infringing content, but the fact is that search engines should not be prohibited from indexing infringing content, and using this method only validates the idea that it is right. NEVER send DMCA notices to a search engine, only to the owner of a web site, or their ISP. --Afed 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of GFDL

I found the following sites that violate the GFDL. Don't have time to follow the steps on the w:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, especially since it would make sense to coordinate efforts than have many volunteers do the exact same thing so here they are:

• mbceo.com
• suprari.com
• gov-certificates.co.uk

Trodel 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

These appear to have been dealt with or taken down. In future, you could report them at en:Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#License_compliance, or place a comment on the article talk page. This would be far more likely to get something done. Twilsonb 08:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tlewawi

Hiy