On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The number of takedown notices sent to Wikimedia is zero.
Because while the number is in some edit histories it is not easy to find.
The number of takedown notices sent to the press for naming the key in their coverage is zero.
Well no that would be illogical if you are going to sue. The press have no safe harbour of any type so no need to for take down notices.
Their customers despise them.
Nah. Look at all the extras on DVDs. Brilliant community relations. Snakes on a plane may not have done so well but again brilliant community relations.
You seem to be assuming that Wikipedia is powerless simply because we don't use our power.
Imagine a serious threat to Wikipedia, where our offence is displeasing thugs with money. Now imagine us mentioning the threat in the site notice.
I understand that radio Caroline tried something similar. I understand it didn't work out too well. Internet radio has been trying that for weeks. No sign of a perminent reprieve. And that is in a situation where compramise is posible without complete capitulation from either side
I seriously doubt us naming the key in the article about the key controversy would actually be illegal. Not unless and until we lost - up till that moment, it's academic and educational free speech.
It is part technology, product, service, device or component for circumventing a technological protection measur
we can't use defence B because we are a nonprofit
C would be problimatical because it would be in an article about decrypting DVDs (if it was in an article about planetry distances we would have a better case).
We are ridiculously powerful just for doing the encyclopedic thing that we claim to be doing.
No we are not. So it goes in sitenotice. Wow we get meaningless internet protests and perhaps a few pro-bonon lawyers if we are luck. The MPAA can afford lawyers at least as good and after the SOAP mess know exactly how much internet buzz is worth in meatspace.