[Wikipedia-l] Astrobiology encyclopedia and Wikipedia

Fri Nov 1 00:43:08 UTC 2002

bob frasier wrote:

>>The reason I don't consider these two concerns as big is this: if the
>>copyright holder ever complains, the copyright violations can always
>>easily be fixed in no time.
>>
>>Axel
>>
>
>The concern comes right after you have filed the answer to the complaint in 
>federal court or right after someone has come after money damages or seeking 
>to shut Wikipedia down?
>
> Why would you assume that someone whose copyright is infringed is only 
>looking to have the offending material removed.
>
This seems like a particularly sinister approach to the issue.  I agree 
that in a litigious society there are some individuals who would see 
perceived copyright violations as an opportunity to get rich.  But let's 
be realistic about this: reasonable people will be satisfied when the 
violation is removed.  If they aren't prepared to be reasonable they 
will have the burden of proof in establishing that we did not act 
correctly when the violation was brought to our attention.  Will they be 
prepared to go through all the expense that may be involved to prove 
their cas?.  I would be interested to know how many claims have so far 
been received from people who believe their copyrights have been 
violated, even foolish claims.  

If these worse case scenarios are at all realistic, then it is an 
incentive to setting up a non-profit that has very limited assets. 
 Perhaps too there should be a second non-profit in a different country 
to sponsor a mirror site that would be prepared to take over if things 
should get that far.  

But  really, my preference is to apply common sense to the situation, 
and not allow copyright paranoia and far-fetched scenarios stiffle what 
we are trying to do.

Eclecticology