From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Alex R. wrote:
From: "Vicki Rosenzweig" vr@redbird.org
At 08:47 AM 11/15/03 -0500, Alex756 wrote:
"Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com said: Arvind Narayanan wrote:
<...snip...>
A legal take-down notice is a logical second step, and the timing here will often depend on time limits provided in the law.
There are no strict time limits, and one can always bring an infringement action for damages, but one wants to try and get an injunction. Since the DCMA OCILLA provisions are available, judges are going to ask, why didn't you invoke those provisions before coming to court? That is what they are there for.
Beyond that, if the violator refuses, what strategies are available?
It is not up to the violator, it is up to the ISP. If the violator is also an ISP, well then you must sue if they issue the required counter notice and restore the works. The limitations period is four years.
Beginning a legal action may not be the best next step. The choice of legal jurisdiction would only be a part of the problem. Legal actions can be costly, especially if we want them to be effective. Who would be responsible for those costs? If there were someone with deep enough pockets to foot that kind of bill, we could only drool at the kind of computer hardware that that could buy. It would be immoral to expect Jimbo alon to be responsible for the costs of an action that could have far reaching implications about attempted claims of copyright on material that is in one way or another already freely available to the general community for its re-use.
If Wikipedia is registered as a collective work with the US Copyright office, attorneys fees will be paid by the infringer. This is one reason that Wikipedia should be periodically registered as the copyright protection is only available after registration (though unpublished works are not required to be registered). Most copyright litigators will take on these cases on contingency if the proper registrations are done.
Protecting the public interest is a public sector function. To some extent that comes into conflict with sincerely held Libertarian ideals which depend very much on the freedom and sense of responsibility of the individual. Of course, there are too many big-buck vested interests involved with government for them to be a dependable ally. If push comes to shove, strategic alliances may be required.
Choosing the right opponent to go after will be important; a US based violator will at least avoid the problems that come with international law. Are there other strategies available before it gets to the courts?
It has nothing to do with international law, the work is protected by US law, if they infringe on the internet it is published in the US and US federal courts have jurisdiction over foreigners. So I don't know what issues you are trying to create here. If the infringer is overseas, get a US judgment and then take it to the foreign court to be recognized. The trend is for courts to recognize judgments, especially in areas of relatively uniform laws, i.e. copyright that is applied through the Berne Convention (or other conventions) on a fairly standard basis.
Once again this discussion should be on the Wikilegal discussion list
that
is what it was created for.
Some of us would prefer not to subscribe to yet another list. :-) This is too important to be relegated to a low traffic list. Ec
Well, the general ideas that are covered here apply to all Wikimedia projects and the issues are legal ones, that is what the legal list is for. Isn't a low traffic list better because it is limited to those who are interested in legal topics?
Alex756