David Gerard wrote:
On 28/01/07, Jeff V. Merkey jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com wrote:
Yeah? How many of you have actually had to stand in front of a judge with millions of dollars of **YOUR** money on the line. I have stood there more times than I care to mention, and in most cases not by my own choice. Judges will not listen to whining exusces and weak arguments, and you don't get to argue over and over again after they rule -- you have to pay. The real shocker is when the judge orders you to pay the other sides legal fees. What if they hire Coudert Brothers from new York to defend them who charges $500.00/hour and they rack up 350,000.00 in fees just to send a dozen letters and file a complaint and you get ordered to pay it.
In the example I mentioned, it may be worth mentioning the Church of Scientology has had to pay the attorney's fees for the people they sued many a time.
It can go the other way -- depends on who wins. In a case where we are using someones copyrighted images and they were posted by a n anonymous editor, I woud dare to guess we may not alays be on the winning side ...
Cheaper to take down the content.
I suspect in a clear-cut case, you'd be surprised how many friends Wikipedia has.
Not that I consider it a good idea to push it, of course.
We should act in good faith always. Good faith means if someone creates a "cloud of doubt" and they are an undisputed owner of the materials in question, a good faith action would be to remove it.
" your honor, we always strive to act in good faith in all situations, and in the present case, we were notified the materials may have been copyrighted and removed them immediately IAW with our policies. Given our actions in good faith, we cannot be held liable as the other side claims since we are simply a third party interactive web service and we have complied with the DMCA at all times ..."
:-)
Jeff
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l