[Foundation-l] Litigation costs

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Ray sorry, but you are dodging the point. The argument I made was that by
entering content that is incompatible with our license you are in breach
with the license. The license does commit us as much as it does our
end-users. By knowingly entering data that will prevent our database to be
used by our end users you are in breach of the license. In a same way our
admins who allow for such data are equally in breach of the license because
they have the duty to ensure that our product conforms to its intentions.

When you are of the opinion that we should be prepared to litigate on this
subject, I would suggest that you and everyone that agrees with you sets up
a war chest. By putting your money where your mouth is, you are targeting
money for confrontations. It is very different from sponsoring our
Foundation. This is to help our end users when they are charged for using
our data.

It is all well and good to say that it is the responsibility of a person to
enter iffy data. It is our end user that you say have to put effort in
finding what is problematic. This is not realistic given the size of our
projects. Consequently, it is our responsibility that our data conforms with
our license.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On Jan 12, 2008 10:11 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > A practical question. Given the size of Wikipedia and Commons what would
> you
> > expect practically from someone to do? The only realistic option for
> > ensuring that our projects are usable within the confines of our license
> is
> > when we make sure they. It is our responsibility. I could even argue
> that we
> > fail the provisions of the license when we don't.
> Copyright law has become extraordinarily complex in the internet age.
> It became what it is because it grew up at a time when a lot of things
> which can now be done were unrealistic bordering on the impossible.  A
> century ago duplicating and redistributing whole books for altruistic
> purpose was far more ridiculous than illegal.  If you wanted to breach
> copyright some economic motivation was almost essential.  The United
> States laws that required simultaneous publication of a work in the U.S.
> using U.S. printers were tantamount to legalizing the infringement of
> foreign copyrights through the extraterritorial application of U.S.
> laws.  The U.S. has gradually come more into line during the last half
> of the twentieth century.
>
> The U.S. still has some peculiarities, but so too does Europe, with
> moral rights and database protections, or the inalienability of an
> author's rights.
>
> The internet has made the impossible possible.  Major copyright owners
> can still win tactical courtroom battles, but their strategic prospects
> in the wider war are not that great.  We can never be absolutely sure
> about the legality of any act.
>
> We need to distinguish between our collective and individual
> responsibilities.  While we should be very conservative about our
> collective responsibility, we also need to allow contributors to accept
> individual responsibility.  Someone who insists that he wants to go much
> further then we collectively think wise can be given that opportunity if
> he accepts the responsibility up front.  He cannot hide behind
> anonymity; he needs to understand that if the Foundation gets a proper
> takedown order it will comply, and that beyond that point dealing with
> the copyright owner will be entirely his problem.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>