[WikiEN-l] Knol - Our first major scandel

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/4/25 Ray Saintonge:
>   
>> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>     
>>> 2009/4/25  <WJhonson at aol.com>:
>>>       
>>>> When there is no repurcussion, people will do what they will ;)
>>>> Does the WF want to start sending cease-and-desist letters based on mirrors
>>>>  not displaying the license link?
>>>>         
>>> The WMF doesn't own those articles, so I'm not sure they can really do
>>> anything about it. The actual authors need to complain.
>>>       
>> You're both right.  It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle
>> that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely
>> editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright
>> law.  Whatever the eventual form of the licence, anyone who harbours the
>> illusion that the WMF will step up to the plate to protect any
>> individual's copyrights is being just plain fucking irresponsible in
>> looking after his own rights.
>>
>> There is good reason why copyrights developed within civil law instead
>> of criminal law.  It shouldn't be up to governments to prosecute private
>> rights.
>>     
> What editorial principle that you do not own the contents of an
> article that it is freely editable by anyone? If you mean WP:OWN, that
> is not intended to be a statement about legal ownership.

Of course WP:OWN is not about legal ownership.  The two approaches 
remain irreconcilable, and if I were a defendant in such a case I would 
not hesitate to raise WP:OWN in evidence, making the point that it 
nevertheless taints legal ownership.  The burden of proof remains with 
the plaintiff.  Given that others can edit the passage, the defendant 
may well argue that this implies that the plaintiff does not have the 
"exclusive right" required by statute.  I think that most judges would 
prefer the simple argument.

Ec