On 30 June 2012 22:45, Tom Morris <t...@tommorris.org> wrote: > The Foundation and the projects are kept at arms length because of s.230 of > the Communications Decency Act in the U.S. so that the Foundation isn't held > legally responsible as the "publisher" of content on Wikipedia, but instead > delegates that publication to the community, and instead seeing themselves as > the hosting company. Fine. I expect the Foundation lawyers know how to do > just that, and where the line is. > > But, the problem is under the Draft Communications Bill, if the Secretary of > State wished to serve "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia" generally with a s.1 notice, > how would that play out? Could WMUK be held responsible under this Bill? How > about individual volunteers?
This draft act isn't aimed at publishers, it is aimed at service providers, so it would definitely be the WMF that is considered responsible for Wikipedia. I can't see any other interpretation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
