Robert Rohde writes:
Don't mistake me for a wild idealist. I recognize there do need to be
practical considerations, but if we are really planning for a $4M budget, then setting aside say $200k (5%) to defend cases where we believe that we are in the right seems like a more than reasonable starting point (in addition to money set aside to address other legal issues).
A single copyright case could easily exceed that amount to defend.
Yes, of course the Foundation has defenses under DMCA. But those who use our content may not. Are you proposing that we allocate $200K to defend those who use project content because we told them it was okay to do so per fair use doctrine?
Not to mention that I continue to believe that a legal defense of Wikipedia would be a very effective rallying point to draw additional funds and the support of like minded organizations (e.g. EFF, etc.)
Having spent nine years at like-minded EFF, I'll point out that EFF raises money for its own operations, mainly, and is unlikely to raise money for us. EFF also very carefully picks its cases -- it does not defend or pursue every winnable case (I wish!). That's because EFF recognizes that it needs to work within a budget and maximize results from its expenditures.
--Mike
A single copyright case could easily exceed that amount to defend.
Would defending one case reduce costs of future cases by virtue of establishing a precedent, or will it still cost enormous amounts even if with a precedent? That is, of course, assuming the potential cases we could end up facing would be similar enough for it to make any difference at all, which may well not be the case, especially if we're talking about cases against reusers rather than WMF.
On Jan 8, 2008 10:20 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Robert Rohde writes:
Don't mistake me for a wild idealist. I recognize there do need to be
practical considerations, but if we are really planning for a $4M budget, then setting aside say $200k (5%) to defend cases where we believe that we are in the right seems like a more than reasonable starting point (in addition to money set aside to address other legal issues).
A single copyright case could easily exceed that amount to defend.
Yes, of course the Foundation has defenses under DMCA. But those who use our content may not. Are you proposing that we allocate $200K to defend those who use project content because we told them it was okay to do so per fair use doctrine?
While it might be nice to help reusers, on practical grounds I'm really only advocating as regards cases in which the WMF is already a defendent or where a wiki contributor is being sued specifically in regards to their actions on WMF sites. In other words, being willing to defend suits that impact WMF properties directly (and where we believe WMF ought to prevail). Of course, suits against reusers may or may not have indirect impacts on WMF content depending on the nature of the dispute, but I will agree that getting involved in third party disputes is generally beyond the scope of what we have resources to deal with.
However, your question makes me wonder. Is your concern about fair use rooted primarily in concern about our telling reusers what is fair use?
-Robert Rohde
On Jan 8, 2008 1:20 PM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, of course the Foundation has defenses under DMCA. But those who use our content may not. Are you proposing that we allocate $200K to defend those who use project content because we told them it was okay to do so per fair use doctrine?
As the only one who mentioned the DMCA in this thread I'll pretend that question was for me. And the answer is, no, I'm not.
I'm all for removing non-free content despite a claim that it is "fair use" and therefore legal. Besides the obvious argument that a free encyclopedia should contain free content, I think such mixing of free and non-free content goes against the spirit if not the letter of the GFDL. But I'm also for being honest about the reasons that content is removed.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org