[WikiEN-l] Knol - Our first major scandel

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/4/26 Ray Saintonge:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
> The only thing WP:OWN has to do with ownership is the name, which is
> clearly metaphorical. I'm pretty sure the law distinguishes between
> ownership and control - you can give up some amount of control over
> something without giving up ownership of it. What statute is it that
> requires you to have exclusive rights to what?

17USC501 begins "Anyone who violates any of the *exclusive rights* of 
the copyright owner..."  One could have fun with this in court. :-)

Ec