wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news > owns and operates their site. > The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs. > It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental flaw in > this argument. > I really doubt that we are "promoting" the Foundation. I think we are > "promoting" (if anything) the contents of the site, which contents are > created, edited, loaded by the community. It is the uploader who is > responsible for any legal issue regarding what they have uploaded. Not the > foundation. > > That is how the Wikimedia sites differ from a typical site. > In the same way, Facebook is not legally responsible for some member uploaded > nude pictures of their ex-boyfriend to their page. > The user doing the uploading is responsible. >
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. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/google_italy_trial http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/limewire_copyright_ruling http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them, by disabling access to the site. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
