On 4 March 2010 19:41, <[email protected]> wrote: > Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very > technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken down. > In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every month > and force the project offline. > > That's the world you're advocating? No responsibility on the part of the > office to even make the slightest attempt to verify the claim?
I think we're falling into the trap of constructing strawmen to fight here. I don't think anyone is seriously claiming that if someone wrote to the WMF claiming to hold the rights to the text of, oh, /Bleak House/, that we would then be obliged to take a copy of it down - because the claim itself is patently nonsensical and can be ignored. But the fact that we can ignore patently invalid demands - and I am quite sure we do, without a qualm - doesn't mean that we ought to feel we can or should start adjudicating on the reasonableness of any not-entirely-clear-cut case that turns up, such as this one... -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
