[WikiEN-l] Copyright and Britannica Article List

Tue Jun 28 18:13:39 UTC 2005

Judges are indeed unpredictable.  Success can often depend on the whims 
of court scheduling.  What I find in the popular view of law is a clear 
violation and a clear penalty with no intermediate steps or grey areas 
in between.  In reality there are several steps between an allegedly 
infringing act and an appelate court decision.  At each step along the 
way our position must be reevaluated.  I think that the reasonable doubt 
about the copyrightability of the Britannica list should take us through 
the first step.  If a take down order is issued, that's when we would 
need to review the matter.

Whether the Britannica list is worthless for our purposes is debatable.  
When I started I would look at our software generated most wanted list 
to see if anything there interested me, and I started a number of 
articles that way.  I can see the EB list being used that way, 
especially by newbies.  The list just shows what we don't have; it does 
not suggest that the potential contributor seek out the Britannica 
article.  If instead it inspires someone to research an otherwise 
obscure historical personage, then we all benefit.

Ec

Fred Bauder wrote:

> While we should aggressively defend our rights, avoiding litigation  
> is a wise policy. For one thing, particular judges don't necessarily  
> follow the law that you think they will. Additionally although you  
> may eventually get costs, you first must pay costs. I'm still not  
> sure about the list of Britannica articles, but I am sure that our  
> own method of generating endless article titles is probably more  
> comprehensive than any list like that. I know that when I want to  
> start a new article I don't look the topic up in Britannica first. So  
> I think the list is probably worthless for our purposes anyway.
>
> Fred
>
> On Jun 28, 2005, at 3:38 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> This was not a matter of a countersuit.  The copyright issue was  
>> already won by the defendants when they sought to recover costs.   In 
>> Online Policy Group v. Diebold http://www.eff.org/legal/ 
>> ISP_liability/OPG_v_Diebold/20040930_Diebold_SJ_Order.pdf Diebold  
>> was ordered to pay costs because it had misused copyright.
>> I don't think that a firm with big bucks at stake is going to be  
>> deterred by legal fees, or the threat of being required to pay the  
>> opponent's legal fees.  Defendants' difficulties are not limited to  
>> copyright law.  Any defendant faced with a contingency chasing  
>> lawyer is going to be at a disadvantage.  A plaintiff and his  
>> contingency paid lawyer should be held jointly liable for a winning  
>> defendant's fees in the same amount as the lawyer would have  
>> received if he had won.  :-)
>>
>> Ec
>