Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
Actually, there's one "remedy" that can be applied: give permission for the message to be posted.
If there's a copyright claim in play (and all I have to go on is what's on wiki and public emails on this, which are suggestive but not conclusive), then nobody on Arbcom or at the Foundation has the legal right to say that.
They can't give copyright permission, but they could give permission in all other ways. If Giano had to worry *only* about fair use, and not also about violating Wikipedia rules about posting private correspondence, he might be able to post it.
Furthermore, I find it disingenuous that a DMCA notice (which may or may not have been sent by Durova, because nobody's willing to say anything) is not considered to be a legal threat that violates the No Legal Threats policy.
One needs to distinguish between legal actions and legal threats. The issue of a formal DMCA notice would be a legal action. It would be a legal threat if I said, "Stop doing X or I will sue you." Legal threats are often tactics for intimidation, and they are effective when most people are fearful of any kind of legal action.
I have often said however that all formal DMCA notices should be considered public documents. Once they are public anyone has the standing to issue a put-back order.
Ec