1. 6

  2. 4

    Was it really so hard for them to say “nobody asked us to do this, but we decided to do so as a precaution”? If they had managed to say that, I’d still be annoyed at excessively long copyrights, but I wouldn’t be annoyed at wikimedia.

    1. 2

      You’re annoyed at them because they didn’t directly state that they took it down of their own initiative?

      1. 3

        I don’t like when people play the victim. Leaves a sour taste.

        1. 2

          Weird, I did not get any “play the victim” vibe from this. I read it as a technical explanation for why the work was removed.

          1. 2

            Same; it goes into a lot of legal detail, and doesn’t include any call for action. It does call this “unfortunate” but only briefly.

            I can easily see how it could be read with a lot of emotional content, though. I kind of suspect they’ve taken pains to write carefully and without value judgments, but it’s obvious they must be upset, and certainly reading it makes me upset on their behalf (since I happen to agree the work ought to be public domain).

            With that in mind, they made the right choice to gloss over who was to blame for the law being that way. It’s easy enough to read it that way when it’s not in it!