On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)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.