Daniel P. B. Smith wrote: I would never start from the position that our potential opponents are poorly informed. Underestimating your enemy is a convenient way of losing. There is nothing you can do to prevent lawsuits from those who want to act irrationally short of acting irrationally yourself. If SCO's objective is to profit through litigating for license fees then their strategy is correct. A correct strategy does not imply that you will always win. It is correct strategy to be a pair of aces in the hole, but there are times when it doesn't work. We don't know how many smaller companies received legal letters from the SCO attorneys, and were satisfied to pay a $10,000 license fee to avoid litigation. It wouldn't be consistent with SCO's interests to go after the likes of Wikimedia because there is no financial reward to be gained; a simple injunction would not be enough to make the litigation worthwhile. Now they've gone all in against the big boys; it's a rational poker strategy. Jail is not a factor unless the copyright infringement is wilful. Any reasonable good-faith argument that our use is fair is enough to prevent that possibility. It also means that reasonable doubt is in our favour. It's a key point. A reasoned position that a particular entry is fair use should be enough to carry us to the point where we receive a take down order. We should only need to consider the cost effectiveness of litigation if we choose to oppose the take down order. The irony with the Britannica material is that by the time we receive a take down order for that list there may be nothing left to take down. The progress in absorbing that material has been that fast. :-) I at least agree insofar as we don't go looking for fights, but there are times when we need to stand up for what we believe. Nevertheless, one of the factors in choosing our battles should be whether that battle serves our greater purpose.