On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Find a nice Dutch webhost? (Which given this garbage, might not be a terrible idea anyway?)
Nope: just say "Here's an encyclopedic article. They're trying to suppress this. Have a look at them SUPPRESSING a NUMBER." Instant press disaster. Same reason the RIAA backed down from suing Ed Felten.
We may get crappy press about stupid vandalism to living bios, but that's completely irrelevant to this PR battle. on one side you have this (ultimately) nerdy and noble Internet encyclopedia that A THIRD OF ALL AMERICANS USE DAILY, not to mention *every* journalist I've spoken to about Wikipedia in the last year ... and on the other, you have widely despised thugs with money, trying to SUPPRESS a NUMBER.
The people posting to this list with the apparent impression that a DMCA notice sent to Wikimedia about the key would cause the site to be switched off an hour later or sent broke ... are being ridiculous. Completely and utterly clueless about how these things work in practice. If you feel I'm being unfair to you in saying that, please detail your experience, 'cos I bet I have way more than you do.
I know some EFF attorneys. After the 2600 decisions, they advised 2600 mag to take down the materials, and then the links after the followups. And they did. 2600 is still around, but doesn't link to code or keys in violation of DMCA.
If they immediately sued with the stated intent to take down Wikipedia the project, they'd end up with hugely bad press. But if they sued "to stop irresponsible people from breaking the law", and clearly stated that they wanted the encyclopedia project to go on but in a legal manner, they'd probably be in the clear in the court of public opinion.
This is the test case for the "Has the Board adequately protected the projects and trademarks from legal liability" questions raised on Foundation-L last week.