On 03/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
If we build a public history of favorable responses
to takedown notices
that would likely be a factor in any judge's decision. (It's one more
reason why all proper takedown notices received should be made a matter
of public record.)
FWIW, I actually asked Mike Godwin about this recently - he says we
get very few DMCA notices indeed. Basically, I think, because we're so
good at handling these things proactively. Occasionally to a paranoid
extent. But Geni is quite correct to call us the web 2.0 project that
gives a damn about copyright. (He said "only", but I'd hope others
would start.)
To sue, the plaintiff will have a high burden of
proof to prove actual damages. He needs to take into account his own
costs, and to a greedy lawyer probability of winning will be a big
factor in his decision to take a case on a contingency basis. If the
complaint is found to be unnecessarily vexatious the plaintiff and the
greedy lawyer also need to weigh in the possibility that they may need
to pay our costs. For a lawyer (especially a greedy one) that can loom
large.
For something like the ridiculous threat model we're talking about,
suing Wikipedia would be up there with suing cute fluffy kittens.
Those who have never been involved in a legal case
seem to have the
impression that one only needs to look at a statute and everything will
be as clear as a revelation from the Messiah. That view is seriously
disconnected from reality.
I've spent the last four and a half years reading Groklaw. I recommend
this to anyone who wants to know just what [[Eben Moglen]] means when
he talks about the law being "squishy". And why lawyers are a bunch of
*geeks* as into intricate constructions as any computer geek.
- d.