Talk:Aaron Swartz arrested and charged for downloading JSTOR articles

JSTOR press release
In addition to the news sources provided, there is a press release from JSTOR. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the relationship to the case?  I can't find it mentioned in any of the sources. Mattisse (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't listed in the sources: but that is what the issue is. It's common background knowledge for anyone who has been following along with online copyright/public domain stories like U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the policy here is on original research, but don't you need a source? It's not common knowledge in the sense "the sky is blue". And "It's common background knowledge for anyone who has been following along with online copyright/public domain stories" is not "common knowledge" in the usual sense. So it is "because you say so" type knowledge? Just wondering, as maybe writers of articles here are allowed to use their unsourced personal knowledge. (I have never been allowed to do so.)   Mattisse (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is rather like giving an unsourced legal opinion. Mattisse (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at Wikipedia: the case "ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality". It is precisely relevant to the stuff about Gmaxwell as it is exactly this point of law which is in contention. If you want a source for this, Wikipedia should do the job. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How, exactly, does Bridgeman vs Corel apply when you're talking about text? As stated on the Water Cooler, there's a Wikipedia article; if it's well-sourced, use those sources. And, you'll be unsurprised to know I have been following online copyright issues. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Scanning a document in with a scanner is making, to quote Wikipedia "exact photographic copies of public domain images" and would per Bridgeman have a very dubious claim to "originality". The discrepancy between U.S. copyright law and U.K. copyright law (which binds the original publisher, the Royal Society) is exactly what Gmaxwell is exploiting. If this common sense observation falls outside the requirements of Wikinews' standards for publication... edit it out. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is to be edited out, it is on the basis of not being sourced, or not being drawn from a static, reliable source. You can't use Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I edited it out. No sense in letting the whole article go stale over one detail. the wub "?!"  11:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)