Justin Cormack wrote:
On 24 Jul 2006, at 10:02, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in fact a coyright violation. We may suspect copyright violations; we may demand that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that means), but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular writing or image is in fact a violation.
It's a dangerous game you propose here.
What's so dangerous about insisting that contributors accept responsibility for their action, and that WMF clarify its role as an ISP.
One important reason is that the foundation does take an editorial interest, indeed employs people to deal with content issues, so cannot just claim to be an ISP. Another is that they (or other people) intent to publish print copies and copies in other forms, where liability is clear, and there is no common carrier type argument.
And the whole point was to create a free encyclopaedia remember. Non free content has no place in a free encyclopaedia.
It does tend to muddy the woaters about editorial control, and this is unfortunately poor strategy. Good business sense would suggest that assets be protected by building a separation between these functions. This does take us into the issue of governance structure, which is better in a separate string.
I know the arguments that distinguish fair use and free use, but the issue is bigger than that distinction. We still need to determine whether the source material is copyrightable in the first place, or whether we are taking it from a source which is itself only copying public domain material and claiming copyright.
Ec