[WikiEN-l] RE: Corrected

Sat May 14 00:55:19 UTC 2005

Stan Shebs wrote:

> geni wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely
>>> used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will
>>> cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and
>>> backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law
>>> firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of
>>> dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of
>>> good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
>>
>> I would suggest against any form of vigilantism. Apart from anything
>> else sooner or latter you run into someone who doesn't care. Then you
>> are in real trouble.
>
> What do you mean, "vigilantism"? We just don't need to tiptoe around
> scared that one mistake by some anon editor will force us to shut
> down. We're not some kind of dubious dotcom with a shady biz model,
> we're as open and truthful as we know how, we're dedicated to facts
> more than agendas, and best of all, we're giving away stuff for free.
>
> That's a very powerful story, and we should be making everybody
> aware of it, not chewing our fingernails in fear of corporate
> lawyers. Suing WP should come to be regarded as worse than suing nuns.

I strongly agree with Stan that when it comes to allegations of copyvio 
we should not be in so much of a hurry to plead guilty that we trip on 
our own feet as we enter the courtroom.  I suppose tha "vigilntism" 
refers to the immediate publishing of the C&D letter on the front page 
as soon as it arrives.  Such an act would be a bit over the top and 
childish, especially when the complainer is troll in different clothing; 
no troll would be better nourished than by having his letter appear on 
our front page. :-)   If and when we receive such a letter we should be 
prepared to give each letter a thorough review based on its own merits.  
There is a wide range of options available at that time, going from 
abject apology when we realize we're wrong to daring idiotic assholes to 
sue us.  We can save our reliance on ninja lawyers for the situations 
when some point of principle is involved.

Those who shrink from fair use really should review the four criteria 
for fair use found in U.S. law.  Copyright paranoids should also review 
the process that takes place when there is a claim of copyright 
infringement, beginning with the requiremts for having a valid take-down 
order.  One of the most important is that the person making the claim 
must have standing; in other words, an off-the-street do-gooder has no 
standing to make such claims about a stranger's works.  In most cases 
there are plenty of inexpensive opportunities to retract tryly 
infringing material before the issue gets out of hand.

Ec