> I imagine that having non-US GLAMs undersand that the foundation wants > to be able to ignore what they regard as their more legitimate > copyright claims will be really helpful.
It's not about ignoring legitimate copyright claims-- we can always decide for ourselves what is a legitimate copyright claim for WMF-hosted projects. We can recognize claims even if we are not required to do so under US law-- but we can't go the other way-- if the US law says no, we can't host it. If this case goes the wrong way, it's possible that the congress will force all US citizens and organizations to recognize illegitimate copyright claims. Remember that in the US law, copyright isn't a 'god-given-right' or anything like free speech or right to property, or even right to privacy- Copyright isn't a 'right'-- it's just a government granted monopoly intended exclusively to achieve a pragmatic end-- incentivizing creation. The nation's judicial branch has a legitimate question that's gone all the way to the supreme court-- precisely how should copyright laws be interpreted in the internet age? Of course the non-profits are right to share their analysis with the US supreme court. It's not as if they're actually deciding the case-- they're just contributing to the discussion with the US Supreme Court, sharing their best guess about what their lawyers believe the correct answer is.. Alec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l