On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over
Wikimedia or specific users
(presumably only those users directly involved in creating or curating the
content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past (e.g. with
the DCRI and frwp) where governments have targeted users within their
jurisdiction to demand information or actions. Could that happen here?
Clearly, the EU doesn't need to establish jurisdiction over EU
citizens who happen to be Wikimedians, since it already has it. The
same is true with regard to affiliated organizations in the EU. Plus,
and this is something that bears repeating, there is no particular
reason to think that the EU might not claim it has jurisdiction over
Wikimedia Foundation, even if it might have a hard time imposing it.
Even claims of jurisdiction without merit can be problematic, as I
explain here; http://youtu.be/wqQOvxyj66w
Should the WMF choose to refuse to implement the
directive, could the ECJ
pursue penalties against the income stream of donations, or grant funding
disbursed to WMF-related entities in the EU? Could the WMF seek exemptions
under Article 9, or would we run into jurisdictional risks by doing that?
I wouldn't think any funds given to, or disbursed from, WMF in the EU
would be immune.
In Article 23, it reads "The controller may be
exempted from this liability,
in whole or in part, if he proves that he is not responsible for the event
giving rise to the damage." Does this, perhaps in conjunction with the
Section 230 status of the WMF, provide some cover?
Article 23's language would not be interpreted as providing
Section-230-like protection, if I read EU law correctly.