On 03/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If we build a public history of favorable responses to takedown notices that would likely be a factor in any judge's decision. (It's one more reason why all proper takedown notices received should be made a matter of public record.)
FWIW, I actually asked Mike Godwin about this recently - he says we get very few DMCA notices indeed. Basically, I think, because we're so good at handling these things proactively. Occasionally to a paranoid extent. But Geni is quite correct to call us the web 2.0 project that gives a damn about copyright. (He said "only", but I'd hope others would start.)
To sue, the plaintiff will have a high burden of proof to prove actual damages. He needs to take into account his own costs, and to a greedy lawyer probability of winning will be a big factor in his decision to take a case on a contingency basis. If the complaint is found to be unnecessarily vexatious the plaintiff and the greedy lawyer also need to weigh in the possibility that they may need to pay our costs. For a lawyer (especially a greedy one) that can loom large.
For something like the ridiculous threat model we're talking about, suing Wikipedia would be up there with suing cute fluffy kittens.
Those who have never been involved in a legal case seem to have the impression that one only needs to look at a statute and everything will be as clear as a revelation from the Messiah. That view is seriously disconnected from reality.
I've spent the last four and a half years reading Groklaw. I recommend this to anyone who wants to know just what [[Eben Moglen]] means when he talks about the law being "squishy". And why lawyers are a bunch of *geeks* as into intricate constructions as any computer geek.
- d.