[Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

[Ray Saintonge]

John M. Sinclair wrote:
> I'm new to this discussion, so I may be inserting at the wrong place and
> time, but I want to suggest that Wikipedia's counsel determine whether
> the Digital Millennium Copyright Act implicitly requires individual
> accounts in order to maintain the Foundation's protections under the
> Act.  I don't know that it does, but I think it may, or may head in that
> direction.
>   

This would be seriously unrealistic.  If you think there is something of 
the sort there by all means give a specific references.  If you need to 
run to counsel to verify the presence every little speculative legal 
provision nothing would ever get done anywhere, and expensively so.

People sign all sorts of complicated contracts every day without so much 
as reading them, let alone understanding them.  They are typically held 
responsible for the consequences.  Do you consult your lawyer every time 
you sign an apartment lease, or buy a car, or take out a credit card.  
The consequences of clauses in these contracts can be more profound than 
what is being discussed here.

> By the way, and by comparison, the federal courts require individual
> attorney accounts for use of the online filing system (called Pacer), so
> that an individual attorney must take responsibility for her or his
> pleadings, and can't hide behind a firm account.  Of course, you can
> always locate an individual attorney, and determine what firm they work
> for.  
>
>   
The court system requires considerably more formality than Wikipedia 
accounts.

Ec