[WikiEN-l] filtering, etc.

[Alex T.]

"Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com>wrote:

> --- "Alex T." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > I completely agree. Unless there is blatant
> > copyright violation (which can
> > be
> > reported through the DMCA mechanism) trying to use
> > Wikipedia to define
> > what is or what is not fair use may be dangerous as
> > it is too much self
> > policing
> > may just be unwarranted self censorship.
> >
> > Alex756
>
> So we should just wait for those horrible "cease and
> desist" notices? You're sure they can't still sue us?
>
> I still think it would be best of us to take our own
> pictures for as much as possible.
>
> Besides, we don't want to be branded something like "a
> place for internet piracy disguised as an
> encyclopedia" in the media. Remember, 5  companies own
> 90% of the media, and they wrote the DMCA.
>
> -LDan
Just because these big companies are behind it does not mean
it is bad.  I am just saying that it is easy to overreach (look at the
Patriot Act) and then make policing too strict which can cause
suffering. The DMCA provisions give all ISPs big and small a
safe harbor from liability, why not use it if it is there. If there is
a blatant copyright infringement there are plenty of people looking
out for such things and they get removed quickly, for those cases
that might not be so clear shouldn't the party that might beleive it
is damaged have the chance to weigh in and give its input?  Isn't
that the idea behind due process (or the similar fundamental justice as the
Canadians call it)?  Is there a reason that only Wikipedians can point
fingers at potential copyright violators rather than letting the copyright
owners do it in cases where fair use might protect the usage? The whole
point about the DMCA ISP provisions is that it protects the ISP without
resort to the courts, it gives ISPs big and small significant power.

BTW why would someone sue a non profit association that is open
content when a DMCA notice will probably do the trick? Most copyright
owners are not rich or in the mood to get trigger happy copyright litigators
involved when there may be a simple solution to innocent infringement.  The
damages they will be rewarded are probably just nominal as Wikipedia is
not using anything anyone posts on it for financial gain and there is even
case law out there that says it will not be held liable for the acts of
third parties
(after all that is what we are, Wikipedia is just an unincorporated
membership
association IMHO).

Regarding litigation, Little Dan, this is America, land of the lawsuit, all
you
have to do is draft a pleading and pay the filing fee and you have a
lawsuit.
Nothing you or I do will stop people from filing such suits.
Alex756