Before it got erased from the record, I thought I asked some relevant questions about the Fuzzy Zoeller case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzzy_Zoeller&diff=110240...
What does this list think? Could Section 230 of the CDA extend immunity to Answers.com in this case, or are they vulnerable? If they get sued, they'll probably rue the day they made their deal with Wikipedia.
(I was told to bring the discussion here.)
On another point, is anyone even considering my post from about 30 hours ago? Is *nobody* willing to bury the hatchet?
Greg
On 2/23/07, Gregory Kohs thekohser@gmail.com wrote:
Before it got erased from the record, I thought I asked some relevant questions about the Fuzzy Zoeller case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzzy_Zoeller&diff=110240...
They're questions that no-one here could possibly answer. You really should ask the people involved if you're interested in the matter.
Gregory Kohs wrote:
Before it got erased from the record, I thought I asked some relevant questions about the Fuzzy Zoeller case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fuzzy_Zoeller&diff=110240...
What does this list think? Could Section 230 of the CDA extend immunity to Answers.com in this case, or are they vulnerable? If they get sued, they'll probably rue the day they made their deal with Wikipedia.
I doubt it. The reason they are going after the law firm is because they traced the IP number there. They have noted that the Safe Harbor provisions apply to Wikipedia, so I would expect that that should also be the case with the mirrors. It looks like a pretty dumb-ass case for Zoeller to pursue, but if he's stupid enough to carry through the judge's decision will make interesting reading.
Ec