That's actually not the flaw in Pascal's Wager
Yes, it is. Pascal's wager is that you should believe it God because
it can't do any harm and could do a lot of good. I guess you could go
with some harm and infinite good, which is exactly equivalent.
Removal of
content isn't impossible, it's just impossible without
causing a great deal of harm to Wikipedia.
Effectively the same argument, in my view. "It's possible, but the
consequences would be infinitely terrible!" Pascal's Wager again.
If it turns out we can't practically remove the infringing content,
the only alternative would be closing Wikipedia down. That's as
terrible as it gets from the POV of Wikipedia...
As for
registering
copyright, isn't that US law? We're not talking about the US here. Do
France and Germany have similar requirements?
Well, we'd have a very interesting case if the copyright holder
proceeded in France or Germany to judgment and then tried to enforce
the judgment in a U.S. court. Multinational litigation is a great
hobby for millionaires, I guess, but not for most people.
I think that was my point a few emails ago and you disagreed with me...
It costs the
plaintiffs money. Something lots of people have and the
WMF doesn't.
I'll be on the lookout for millionaire Wikipedians who'd rather
destroy WMF than allow relicensing under a new version of GFDL. I'm
sure that's a very large class of individuals.
You really don't get it, do you? IT ONLY TAKES ONE. Who cares how
large the class is? As long as it is non-empty, we have a problem.