On 24 Jul 2006, at 10:02, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in
fact a
coyright violation. We may suspect copyright violations; we may
demand
that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that
means),
but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular
writing
or image is in fact a violation.
It's a dangerous game you propose here.
What's so dangerous about insisting that contributors accept
responsibility for their action, and that WMF clarify its role as
an ISP.
One important reason is that the foundation does take an editorial
interest,
indeed employs people to deal with content issues, so cannot just
claim to
be an ISP. Another is that they (or other people) intent to publish
print
copies and copies in other forms, where liability is clear, and there
is no
common carrier type argument.
And the whole point was to create a free encyclopaedia remember. Non
free
content has no place in a free encyclopaedia.
Justinc