On 5/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)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.
--
geni