On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 2:43 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
It seems then that there is a question of jurisdiction involved. It has
been my long held understanding that the Wikimedia projects have operated
under the laws of the United States, and that WMF has been consistent in its
view that chapters are not responsible for the contents of the projects. Why
then do we now compromise this by relying on what the French courts might
say if the takedown notices are issued under US law?
It turns out that foreign copyright judgments are more easily enforceable
against U.S. entities in United States courts than other kinds of
judgments, due to the copyright lobby's efforts to shape international
copyright and enforcement treaties.
Counter-notices would also be produced under US law. There is no
requirement that the person who files a counter-notice
be the same person
who posted the original material. The original takedown notice needs to be
a public document in order to enable any person considering a counter-notice
to form the required good faith belief that the material was taken down
because of a mistake or misidentification, or to challenge whether the
takedown notice was compliant with all the requirements of such a notice.
Thus I would suggest that the notices are not privileged in the way that
other correspondence or discussions would be.
We made the details of the notice public, as Nathan has already shown.
--Mike