On 5/3/07, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: According to [[Universal v. Reimerdes]], DeCSS was a single case that included all defendants. Does one party 'go first' in cases like this? MPAA would loose nothing by including Wikipedia in a suit against Wired even if we only linked to the Wired article that published it, after all that was the crux of the latter part of the DeCSS case: 2600 deep linking to other publishers. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes> Also, do we have an obligation to mirrors to not include content that could put them in hot water ? Answers.com is currently proudly displaying the DeCSS descrambler image... On 5/4/07, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: If we publish it because Wired is the source and MPAA filed the cases separately, is it reasonable to assume that a separate Wikipedia case would be stayed pending the resolution of a Wired case? -- John

On 04/05/07, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: And Answers.com is smart enough to know that answering "Blatantly academic fair use, go away" would not only win but be excellent marketing. - d.

For god's sake, the NYT -is- a publisher, and they linked to it all over their official blog. You think their lawyers would have let them do that, if there were any significant degree of risk? On 5/3/07, Anthony &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: -- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

Because, if everyone else in the world is publishing it and linking to it, and we're running around worrying that the sky will fall if anyone breathes a mention of the Forbidden Number, we're going to look ridiculous. And rightly so, that -is- ridiculous. On 5/4/07, Anthony &lt;wikilegal(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: -- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.