On 24 Jul 2006, at 10:02, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ultimately, only a judge can decide whether a contribution is in fact a coyright violation. We may suspect copyright violations; we may demand that a contributor accept responsibility (and define what that means), but we can rarely make a definitive statement that a particular writing or image is in fact a violation.
It's a dangerous game you propose here.
What's so dangerous about insisting that contributors accept responsibility for their action, and that WMF clarify its role as an ISP.
One important reason is that the foundation does take an editorial interest, indeed employs people to deal with content issues, so cannot just claim to be an ISP. Another is that they (or other people) intent to publish print copies and copies in other forms, where liability is clear, and there is no common carrier type argument.
And the whole point was to create a free encyclopaedia remember. Non free content has no place in a free encyclopaedia.
Justinc