On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense strategy at all, which basically is the situation now.
I'm afraid I must deny that we have no defense strategy.
But why not support the community in issuing counter-claims, by telling them that the possibility is there, and what the consequences are (both the positive one that the WMF is then likely to re-instate the material, and the negative one that the one doing the claim will be the one liable to get sued if the other party decides to do so).
If I were you, I would not assume that this is something WMF would never do. As has been made clear before now, we consulted with French lawyers before complying with the takedown notice in this instance, to assess how seriously to take the copyright claims.
The situation now is that a single take down notice will have the WMF take down the material, basically saying to the community "we have to do this".
I disagree with this characterization of the situation.
How do you expect people to issue counter-claims if they
don't even know about the possibility of doing so?
Are you saying that the possibility of responding to a DMCA (or equivalent) takedown notice has been a secret until now? My experience has been the converse -- that any copyright advocate who knows enough to track copyright dates and to post dozens or hundreds of texts to Wikisource is likely to know the basics of takedown notices and counter-claims, or is able quickly to determine on his own what can be done in response.
I'm sorry, but I am getting more and more the feeling that for the board and the executive the foundation is more important than the projects.
This seems disingenuous to me. You seem to be saying that all collaborative projects must provide you with legal representation and advice. I'm pretty sure the Free Software Foundation does not do this, and that Creative Commons doesn't do it either. There are organizations that do provide such services, like EFF (my former employer). It seems to me to be a mistake to try to turn the Wikimedia Foundation into another EFF, or to say that "the Foundation is more important than the projects" because it does not try to be EFF.
To me, this answer is an example to that. Surely, it is easy
enough to put an answer in such wordings that the likelihood of losing such a suit (in the already unlikely circumstance that such a suit would actually be brought forward) are negligible.
The issue is not the losing of such a suit. We'd likely win it. The issue is the cost of winning it.
There is plenty of generic legal advice about how to respond to takedown notices. A little Googling will turn up some for you.
So that's the foundation's reaction?
I'm avoiding giving you legal advice while dropping broad hints about where you can find good legal advice for free. Of course, I can't compel you to take the hint.
If you don't like us taking down material, just find out yourself what can be done about that - and then find out how that something is done that can be done about that?
Other Wikimedians don't seem to find this as tricky as you do.
You seem to be more tightly bedded with not only valid but also invalid copyright claimers than I ever had thought possible.
This seems to be an inference that is insupportable on the basis of the facts you have.
--Mike