On 5/4/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/05/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)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.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com