On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By
comparison, when I
worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people
who called in for help.)
Couldn't we then use EFF for this specific occasion? Aren't they willing?
Peter Gervai writes:
Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or
paid by) the WMF and _then_ accept the _known_
risk to file a
counter-notice.
What happens if they follow the legal advice from WMF and then face
liability anyway? (This sometimes happens even when the best advice is
given.)
I'm sure that the advice would've been detailed this possible outcome
as well, weighting its probability.
The problem is that average editor have close to zero knowledge about
the chances; either it's 80% that you'll get sued successfully, 50%
that it's gonna happen or 5% (or maybe 0%).
WMF is not insured against the malpractice lawsuit
that community
members might bring in that case.
I'm sure you have at least a dozen way to phrase your possible disclaimer. :-)))
But I was mainly referred to the request to people to back up their
claim with counternotices, and why this wasn't realistic. If nobody
can give advice then I don't expect people to take undefined risks.
And I do not expect WMF to be able to give that advice, acknowledged.
We're clearly not equipped for that.
Peter