[WikiEN-l] Seriously, on BJAODN

[Ray Saintonge]

phoebe ayers wrote:

>c) if b) is true, then moving deleting the page up to the top of the to-do
>pile and deleting it hastily seems advisable only if there is a real and
>pressing danger that the page will affect Wikipedia adversely by existing,
>which is usually because we are clearly breaking the law with a copyright
>violation, or because someone is likely to sue and/or be harmed by the
>contents;
>
It's also important to point out that US law provides a three year 
limitation to prosecute for infringement of copyright.  Material that 
has already been there for three years cannot be subject.  There is a 
five year limitation for criminal wilful infringement, but it would be 
extremely difficult to establish wilfullness when the actual copyright 
of the material is seriously diswputed.

>d) the former danger (that it is a clear copyright and thus legal violation)
>does not exist if a) is true; and the latter danger (that someone will sue
>or be harmed) pretty clearly also doesn't exist, since the majority of stuff
>in BJAODN is silly vandalism which I suspect no-one will ever come back to
>claim or otherwise be bothered by ("hi, I vandalized Wikipedia in 2004, and
>I'd like credit for it, plz!" or "your bad jokes and outrageous claims were
>so bad they adversely affected my health, and I'm suing!");
>
In such circumstances the legal obligation is likely not there.  
Nevertheless, it would be good public relations to accomodate in that 
way any idiot who is willing to publically admit that he is one.

Thank you for your comments in general on this.  The fact that they are 
coming from a person who does not habitually participate in 
wikicatfights makes them all the more cogent.

Ec