[necessary disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Please do not take the below
as legal advice. I recommend you retain professional counsel if you
have not yet already.]

I think you're right that if the wiki only contains textual
information about how to find the information, it's probably
justifiable as free speech and is absolutely not subject to a DMCA
takedown by Eli's lawyers. In fact, if Eli attempts a DMCA takedown on
material that they don't own the copyright on - effectively abusing
the DMCA - you can countersue them under 512(f). I've done this
effectively in federal court - see OPG v Diebold.

Actual hyperlinks to copyrighted information might or might not be
okay - there is actually conflicting case history about this. A fair
use defense under the "public interest" clause is in this case very
likely tenable. Of course, if a fair use defense for republication is
tenable then even direct republication would be permissible.

So under copyright, I think you have a strong case for permissibility
given your public interest exemption.

But this does not cover a separate court injunction against the
redistribution of this information. Eli's lawyers said there was one
but failed to cite it. If there is one - and I'd rather hear from Eli
than you about the details - then distributing even textual
information about how to obtain and redistribute the information could
land you in contempt of court.

I'll be clear that my company will do all it can legally do to let its
users exercise their First Amendment rights. But we can go no further
than the law; if a judge were to tell us to take the material down,
then we would do so.

 David Weekly
 CEO of PBwiki
Zyprexa-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to