[email protected] wrote: > Mike Godwin wrote: > >> [email protected] writes: >> >> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of >> >>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for >>> its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel. >>> >>> >> It helps to actually read the stories and understand the cases. The Google >> execs were found guilty even though they quickly responded to a complaints >> and removed the offending video. In other words, they didn't make the >> "nobody is home" argument. >> >> Limewire is a contributory-infringement case that has nothing to do with >> publisher liability. (Limewire distributed software.) >> >> > > The point being made is that courts are taking a narrow reading of the > exemptions. At issue is going to be whether Congress having passed 2257 > did they intend for the safe-harbor exemptions to allow an organization > to evade those regulations simply by allowing anonymous users to upload > pornographic content. > I doubt you can actually tie together in a reasonable fashion the reading of US congress passed laws and what passes for juridifical sillyness internationally (and the US has no cause to smirk in this respect!!) I have previously thought the idea of moving the servers out from the US as just a joke, on the grounds that the US courts don't as a rule tend to swerve towards slapstick-comedy in applying laws.
> > >> And the blog owner actually hasn't been found liable for user-submitted >> libel in the Register story published. As the story is reported, the blog >> owner has merely been told that moderation of content runs the risk of >> *creating* liability by removing the exemptions for mere hosts. The decision >> is regarding a pre-trial motion. In other words, the case has precisely the >> opposite meaning of what wiki-list writes here, since it focuses on the >> risks of moderation, not the risks of non-moderation. >> >> > > > The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they DO > have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non > encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is constant moderation > on by or on behalf of the foundation. If not teh Foundation then the > admins have responsibility. The foundation is not acting simply as a > hosting site that merely stores user submitted data. It is not godaddy, > it is not wordpress, it is not even YouTube. > > > Again, this argument fails the "laugh test". Sure there might in a completely perversely constructed universe be a totally idiotic argument that every editor of wikipedia is in some -- complete failure of parody here -- sense "employed" by the foundation, because they are so richly rewarded for their labours. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
