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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editIt'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)
- Updated to reflect the permanent injunction. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
This...
edit...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)