The Cunctator wrote:
On 11/1/02 3:02 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
bob frasier wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always easily be fixed in no time.
The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking to shut Wikipedia down?
One of the benefits in the US of the DMCA (unintended, I'm sure ^_^) is supposed to be that IPs have limited liability in this sort of case. As long as the IP responds quickly to a request to remove material, then they should be OK. And that's exactly what we would do, whether it's a matter of uploading infringing material or of removing required notices from material used with permission.
The provider has limited liability, but not the website editor(s), unless I'm mistaken.
And how does that fit in with the fact that at Wikipedia we are all editors? Eclecticology