On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If they infringe copyrigh or engage in defamation they're on their own if they have to defend themselves in court. Republishing copyvio material is not a violation of GFDL since GFDL could not apply to the original short-lived copyvio.
GFDL is a straw man. I'm talking about third party liability. Suppose I grant a servant access to my post, and one day someone sends me a copy of the latest Harry Potter novel in an envelope. Having opened the envelope and recognised the nature of its contents, I may take steps to dispose of it.
But suppose that, instead of disposing of it, I place it within reach of someone whom I have reason to believe may wish to betray me.
Then I have contributed to any action that may be taken by that person to publish the work without authorization.
A similar argument applies to defamation. The onus is on me, as custodian of my own post, to demonstrate that I do not recklessly dispose of it. Whilst I shouldn't be expected to take responsibility for any and every illegal act that is perpetrated by my servants, once I become aware that such an act may take place, I should take reasonable steps to prevent it. The problem is the word "reasonable". If a defamatory statement is published, a plaintiff may well have an apprehension that this is because I have been reckless, even if I haven't, and much time and money may be spent by both sides in deciding the issue.