Well and are we technically "re-publishing" each time someone opens
the page in their browser?
I'm not completely clear on what the legal model is in relation to
websites as printing presses, perhaps someone can point me in the
right direction?
FF
On 12/7/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden(a)yahoo.ie> wrote:
Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: Steve Block wrote:
. If we archive libellous statements, we are open to
libel suits.
I don't believe that's true. When newspapers have been sued for libel,
typically they are required only to stop *re*publishing the statement,
i.e. in new editions of the paper; they are not required to excise the
offending article from their archives, which for historical archival
purposes ought to be an unabridged record.
-Mark
There is a difference. The only people who can access a media archives are researchers or
people who choose to go in to look at the microfilms, which is a tiny number of people. In
addition an apology is required to be entered in the paper. But our archives would be open
access, so as long as we had the libel in open archives we could be repeating it by virtue
of that access. In addition someone could simply revert back to it and cause legal
nightmares.
Thom
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l