James, I think you may have missed the part of my message about "and are willing to work with us to address concerns we may have about their existing services" :)
In any case, given that the IA in general is way more eager to test the boundaries of copyright law and given that they (through Brewster) have much deeper pockets to handle any legal challenges that do come up, I cannot really imagine a situation where a situation that the IA considered too legally risky to consider would be anything approaching a good choice for the WMF. On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > IA's legality in general has apparently never been tested in court, > > A bit too generic a statement; I assume you're talking only of the > legality of giving public access to Wayback copyright-eligible all > rights reserved content. > IA follows a standard which is designed to avoid litigation: > http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html > Until the Oakland Archive Policy is supersed, they're not going to > change their policies. Is there an alternative standard that one (e.g. > Wikimedia) could adopt? If not, who's going to make one? Probably > netpreserve.org and IFLA would need to be involved at least. > > Nemo > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
