[WikiEN-l] Copyright violation

[Ray Saintonge]

Alex R. wrote:

>From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>>  Alex R. wrote:
>>
>>>From: "Vicki Rosenzweig" <vr at redbird.org>
>>>
>>>At 08:47 AM 11/15/03 -0500, Alex756 wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Daniel Mayer" <maveric149 at yahoo.com> said:
>>>>Arvind Narayanan wrote:
>>>>
><...snip...>
>
>>A legal take-down notice is a logical second step, and the timing here
>>will often depend on time limits provided in the law.
>>
>
>There are no strict time limits, and one can always bring an infringement
>action for damages, but one wants to try and get an injunction.
>
Or a mandamus requiring that they give appropriate credits, maybe even 
achieving the effect that whatever original material they added 
themselves becomes subject to to FDL.  That would be a more fitting 
result than just winning a lump of money.

> Since the DCMA OCILLA provisions are available, judges are going to ask,
>why didn't you invoke those provisions before coming to court? That
>is what they are there for.
>
Of course,  the easy options should normally be tried first.

>> Beginning a legal action may not be the best next step.  The choice of
>>legal jurisdiction would only be a part of the problem.  Legal actions
>>can be costly, especially if we want them to be effective.  Who would be
>>responsible for those costs?  If there were someone with deep enough
>> pockets to foot that kind of bill, we could only drool at the kind of
>>computer hardware that that could buy.  It would be immoral to expect
>>Jimbo alon to be responsible for the costs of an action that could have
>>far reaching implications about attempted claims of copyright on
>>material that is in one way or another already freely available to the
>>general community for its re-use.
>>
>
>If Wikipedia is registered as a collective work with the US Copyright
>office, attorneys fees will be paid by the infringer. This is one reason
>that Wikipedia should be periodically registered as the copyright protection
>is only available after registration (though unpublished works are not
>required to be registered). Most copyright litigators will take on these
>cases on contingency if the proper registrations are done.
>
This is a precautionary move.  It should probably be done quarterly, 
given the frequency of change in the Wikipedia corpus.

>>Choosing the right opponent to go after will be important; a US based
>>violator will at least avoid the problems that come with international
>>law.  Are there other strategies available before it gets to the courts?
>>
>It has nothing to do with international law, the work is protected by US
>law, if they infringe on the internet  it is published in the US and US
>federal courts have jurisdiction over foreigners.
>
Most countries properly find the extraterritorial application of US law 
objectionable.  If you start an action against a foreign defendant, he 
may not show up.  There would be a default judgement, perhaps even fully 
enforceable in the defendant's home country.  That really accomplishes 
nothing.  The action was not primarily for the money.  Only one violator 
is knocked off the net, and no precedents are set for the future.  What 
are we trying to accomplish?

> So I don't know what issues you are trying to create here. 
>
The verb "create" makes this an offensive comment.

>If the infringer is overseas, get a US judgment
>and then take it to the foreign court to be recognized. The trend is for
>courts to recognize judgments, especially in areas of relatively uniform
>laws, i.e. copyright that is applied through the Berne Convention (or other
>conventions) on a fairly standard basis.
>
I wouldn't count on that.

>>>Once again this discussion should be on the Wikilegal discussion list that
>>>
>>>is what it was created for.
>>>
>>Some of us would prefer not to subscribe to yet another list. :-)   This
>>is too important to be relegated to a low traffic list.
>>Ec
>>
>
>Well, the general ideas that are covered here apply to all Wikimedia projects
>and the issues are legal ones, that is what the legal list is for. Isn't a low
>traffic list better because it is limited to those who are interested in legal
>topics?
>
This issue will affect more people than those who sit on the Wikilegal list.

Ec