Mark Gallagher wrote:
Will,
he's not trying to take Wikipedia down at all.
Here's what happened:
Patrick wrote a bunch of articles on mathematics and computer science-related topics. They were quite good, really.
One of them was full of original research. It was taken to AfD, and mocked.
Perhaps there should be a way of punishing those who abuse process that way. That lack of civility is every bit as serious as breaching original research rules.
- He wasn't very happy about this (gosh, I wonder why?), and declared that we couldn't use a couple of *other* of his articles. He tried blanking the articles, but was reverted by Tawkerbot. So then he hit on the idea of a DMCA takedown notice to force us to remove his contributions from our records.
It's an interesting approach which opens up a lot of fantastic opportunities.
Okay, not the nicest thing or the smartest thing that he could have done. But this is a case of a user we did wrong by, who over-reacted. This is generally considered something to be regretted, not an opportunity for humour.
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal details. It may even be legally required.
One of the requirements of takedown orders is that the alleged infringer must be notified by the service provider (Section 512(g)(2)(A)). It would seem that the practical approach would be to put a copy of the full takedown order where the article once appeared. That notice is a legal document which includes, among other things, the notifier's identifying details.
There is an open question about just who is the infringer. Presumably, it's _everyone_ who participated in editing that page, or at least it should be for purposes of determining who should receive the notice. If they aren't infringers they have a legal complaint that their work was illegally removed.
Unlike original notifications which require that the person complaining of copyright infringement must have a personal interest in the material, there does not appear to be any requirement that a person issuing a counter notification must have a personal interest. The law uses the term "subscriber". That could mean anyone with a Wikipedia account! The standard in 512(g)(3)(C) is "A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The other requirements relatively more mechanical. One does not even need to describe the basis for that good faith belief, but providing such a description could still go a long way to resolving the legal issues
I assume that the take down notice under consideration was properly sent to Michael Davis in his capacity as the registered agent, and that there was no mistake in that regard. There are however other arguments that could establish the required good faith.
A service provider is still protected by a safe harbor if he does not comply with a substantially deficient notification. In this case the notice is deficient in identifying the works that were infringed. He merely repeated the titles of the articles, which, oddly enough included two talk pages. What this provision should do is identify the truly original works so that either the service provider or a subscriber can seek out those works, and with due dilligence determine for himself whether he believes that an infringement really took place.
If our complainer is through some recursive slight of hand both contributor and infringer of something that was originally written as a part of Wikipedia he is in violation of the GFDL. GFDL makes no sense unless the licensing is irrevocable in the first place.
Does any Wikipedian living in the United States want to issue a counter notification giving jurisdiction to the Federal District Court where he lives? I could file from outside the US, but I am having a problem interpreting the phrase "any judicial district in which the service provider may be found". For me the most convenient district would be the one that includes the State of Washington, but it's unclear whether that choice is available to me.
Ec