Michael Snow wrote: I agree that laches in that case was applied to prevent injunctive relief, and that a lot has happened since 1989: notably the spread of the on-line world. Invoking laches before the expiry of the limitation period would not be my choice of a first line of defence. One thing that is certainly not clear is when the limitation clock starts running. In the world of the printed book continuously renewed availability is not an option; time must elapse between one edition and the next. Laches can probably be invoked to prevent the extension of the limitation period beyond three years as long as an unbroken thread can be traced from the original allegedly infringing act to the act that is used as a basis for action. The limitation period can probably be viewed as the time within which the person should have known about the infringement. The copyright owner should have a duty of due dilligence which duty might be satisfied simply enough by periodic Google searches using key phrases in his text. Something like keeping dated records of negative search results might be sufficient to establish lack of knowledge. If there were positive results, and he did nothing about any of them (including ones unrelated to Wikipedia, and our downstream users who have failed to trace their source as required by the GFDL) then invoking laches after the initial three year period would be a possibility. "Doing something" may be as simple as sending an informal request to have the material removed from the offending website. Ec

Legally, Wikipedia as publisher is beyond the scope of the Canadian Criminal Code, because its servers are not in Canada. However, each editor is legally responsible for what they write, and if they are in Canada could in principle be sued or prosecuted as author of the material, and perhaps as publisher too, as this is a wiki. (Note: This is not legal advice.) However, if the publication ban is being adhered to by others, it may mean that there is no published information that Wikipedia could refer to anyway, bearing in mind the NOR policy. Sarah On Apr 6, 2005 8:46 PM, AndyL <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:

Interesting. It's difficult to use an anonymous person posting to a blog as a source, though. The judge is due to decide tomorrow whether to lift the ban, so we don't have long to wait. It's an interesting question as to whether a Canadian Wikipedian could simply plead ignorance of the bans and repeat the blogger's information. Journalists aren't allowed to plead ignorance, even in cases where the ban has itself been part of a sealed record and therefore hard to obtain information about, journalists are nevertheless expected to make inquiries to find out whether there's a ban, and can be prosecuted for breaching it even when they say they didn't know about it. In reality, they usually do know because they know media law and can predict which types of cases are likely to attract which types of bans. But whether a court would extend the ignorance-is-no-defense principle to a Wikipedia editor, who may not be so familar with media law and who doesn't have such easy access to court records, would make an interesting test case. If you're volunteering, Andy ... I've heard that Canadian jails are very civilized. ;-) Sarah On Apr 6, 2005 9:25 PM, AndyL <andyl2004(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: