Justin Cormack wrote:
If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.
Anybody might sue anybody else about anything; paranoia thrives by ignoring remote possibilities. Before there is a legal suit there would be a DMCA takedown order. There are technical requirements about what such an order MUST contain. As long as Wikimedia is only an ISP it must take down the specified material, AND notify the person who uploaded it. Until that point there are no legal expenses. That's what a safe harbour is all about. If the uploader objects he then has an opportunity to object to the takedown, and go to court at his own expense if he so desires. The Foundation is not liable as long as it acts within the safe harbour.
There _may_ be other ways in which an offended party could begin a lawsuit, but none of them are realistic. Maybe you should make an effort to understand what you are talking about before dreaming up any more uninformed nightmare scenarios.
Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
The wonderful thing about the mailing list is that such wild pronouncements are not subject to our Verifiability rules.
Ec