On 04/05/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 04/05/07, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> We are an organization that would be in
terrible trouble if sued for
> statutory damages for a thousand infractions of DMCA.
I think it's blindingly obvious that any
serious attempt to do so
would result in the destruction of the DMCA, not Wikipedia.
Furthermore, from the article now at [[AACS encryption key controversy]]:
Lawyers and other representatives of the entertainment industry,
including Michael Avery, an attorney for Toshiba Corporation,
expressed surprise at Digg's decision, but suggested that a suit aimed
at Digg might merely spread the information more widely. "If you try
to stick up for what you have a legal right to do, and you're somewhat
worse off because of it, that's an interesting concept."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-revolt3may03,0,1001452.story?page=2&a…
It appears to be the first time they've worked out that s00per DMCA
powers might not be a good thing to throw around without a moment's
thought.
Now, I'd like you to think what Wikipedia and Wikimedia could do in
response should thugs with money really try such an odious attack on
us for writing obviously and blatantly encyclopedic information in an
article, such as naming the damn key in the article about the damn
key.
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Find a nice Dutch webhost? (Which given this garbage, might not be a
terrible idea anyway?)
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.