> the description of Lora taken from the website that exists to provide descriptions of Lora to people, has an implicit usability
that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it
Yeah, but it's a relatively safe bet that an organization would rather be represented by their own carefully-reviewed, professionally-crafted verbiage than one hastily thrown together by a volunteer editor, and thus would not pursue action against the publisher.
I'm not saying that Wikipedia should use content without the appropriate licensure, but in practice, copyright is violated as a matter of routine to provide some fairly basic services. Copyright law should be amended to prevent liability for conventional uses.
Like I said, I don't think it'd be a good idea for Wikipedia to start copying and pasting from random websites without the appropriate clearances. I do think it'd be a good idea to revise the law so that normal uses are not illegal anymore.
Yes, they are among the biggest copyright aggressors of the world. Just like L Lessig, I care about common sense copyright policy, which forces me to care about reforming the U.S. campaign finance system so that congress can represent the people again.
that's not how copyright law works. you may argue that it should work that way, but it does not work that way unless you petition Congress to modify it