From: "Stevertigo" utilitymuffinresearch2@yahoo.com
What I mean is: since WP enables the publishing of stuff -- and then says "this user who did the posting is responsible, for any infringement not us" (forgeting about shielding the user for now) -- is WP under some obligation to keep its ip logs just in case, to deflect liability? If these are insufficient-- ( in the case that some violators may use decent enough proxies) -- might a court say that WP (since its in the business of "publishing") must also be in the business of ID-ing its "users" -- and not simply give them free reign to pubish?
There is an argument that because of the GFDL that requires WP to maintain any information that can establish the identity of contributors. The GFDL is worthless if it is impossible to confirm that the contributions being made by WP are original and without infringing material. How can one do that without getting a statement from the contributor that the materials are not copied from someone else (people working at VfD/copyvio try to do this, but they can only really check for online copying, there are tonnes of text out there that are not searchable over the internet but still copyright).
Thus the ip logs can help to establish and confirm identity.
I doubt that a court could order WP to register its users. There is a strong freedom of speech argument there. Also US copyright law specifically protects pseudonymous authorship (though it is not tied to the death of the individual, it is actually the shortest copyright period available, on of the reasons I don't post under my full name).
might WP run into an eventuality where its existence as a "Wiki" is a simple contradiction to the responsibilities demanded by US legal liability?
Someone will analyze it and figure out some way to fit it in, but my intuitive response is that a wiki is really a pass through that goes back to the contributor/user. How can it be otherwise?
Of course the more institutionalized a wiki gets the more it takes on the persona of the institution. However it is not like a wiki used on an intranet, it is a free and open wiki that anyone can contribute to (even anonymously). For this reason it would seem it could never become a shield.
All the more reason to warn users of their potential liability if they post anything wrong.
Of course if someone has a good reason to take off material about themselves I think that serious consideration should be done to do so, but even deleted pages are reviewable by sysops, so everything is preserved and their is no destruction of evidence.
Alex756