On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater
> degree
> > than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
> > "superinjunctions"?
> First, WMF operates globally, and while I took pains as general
> counsel, just as the WMF legal team does now, to limit exposure around
> the world, it is a mistake to suppose that jurisdictional protections
> are invariably impenetrable. See my discussion here on YouTube:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQOvxyj66w .
> Second, the ECJ decision can be used to go after editors individually,
> or organized WMF-affiliated groups.

Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over Wikimedia or specific
users (presumably only those users directly involved in creating or
curating the content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past
(e.g. with the DCRI and frwp) where governments have targeted users within
their jurisdiction to demand information or actions. Could that happen

Should the WMF choose to refuse to implement the directive, could the ECJ
pursue penalties against the income stream of donations, or grant funding
disbursed to WMF-related entities in the EU? Could the WMF seek exemptions
under Article 9, or would we run into jurisdictional risks by doing that?

In Article 23, it reads "The controller may be exempted from this
liability, in whole or in part, if he proves that he is not responsible for
the event giving rise to the damage." Does this, perhaps in conjunction
with the Section 230 status of the WMF, provide some cover?

CC'd to the advocacy advisory list.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to