Anthony wrote:
On 5/2/07, Jeff Raymond wrote:
geni wrote:
You don'r have a choice. A lot of our boarderline "is this a copyvio?" (answer erm maybe) is delt with by 20 something brits. We simply can't afford the lawyers to answer all of them.
Again, this isn't a copyvio situation (and our copyright paranoia is a whole different can of worms), but a situation of contradictory and unclear legality that shouldn't be handled the way it has been thus far.
It's a situation of contradictory and unclear legality under copyright law, which would make it an alleged copyright law violation.
An allegation does not a violation make.
I'd appreciate the foundation coming right out and saying that we aren't allowed to mention the key, if that's what they want, but as someone coded up the site to not allow the key to be mentioned, that's almost as good.
More important would be for the Foundation to develoip a clear arm's length relationship with the communities that it hosts. It must respond to proper legal notices in accordance with the law, but should not be making unilateral determinations of what is and is not illegal. It can suggest to a community that given content may be clearly illegal, but in the absence of a proper legal demand it remains up to that community itself to take the action it deems fit. Doing otherwise could compromise its status as an ISP.
Ec