Ray Saintonge wrote: > Techman224 wrote: > >> Unfortunately, the WMF got involved the moment when they removed the keys, >> also the DMCA notice (or any other notice) >> is given to the person or organization that runs the website. It is not >> given to the user who posted the content as they can't >> remove content after it has been published. Since the WMF got the notice, it >> is their responsibility to file a counternotice or not. >> >> >> > No. This is why such notices should be a matter of public record. An > ISP who disagrees with a notice can simply leave the material there and > wait to be sued without waiting for a counter-notice. It has the right > to do so; this is far different from an obligation to do so as you seem > to be suggesting. > > Ec > >
It should be noted that the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - which is the closest thing to a accessible public record of such notices - does not appear to hold more than 3 (count them, three) notices that deal with content on wikimedia sites. Notably it appears that none of them appears to have been entered by the WMF - with the caveat that perhaps the one involving German Wikipedia may have had some chapter involvement, though likely not. I would be interested to hear from some knowledgeable person in a position of responsibility within the Foundation (perhaps Mike Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen P.S. Pointedly not commenting at all about your understanding of the level of obligation to comply with a notice, though mine differs considerably from yours. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
