Webwork - 1:57 pm on Sep 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

Some random thoughts . .

Whomever uploaded the articles needs to be banned as an editor for utter lack of discretion, lawlessness, etc. IF Wikipedia refuses to remove those who consistently (matter of proving this) flaunt the rights of others Wikipedia may eventually be deemed to either a) collude; b) be accepting the derived benefits of unlawful behavior; c) you name it.

DMCA helps, a lot, but isn't necessarily the solution to having someone authorized to act (an official act of Wikipedia) WHO exhibits a consistent pattern of misappropriation.

Methinks, at some point, a legal case will establish that just removing the offending material will not grant immunity IF there are "other, related issues" - such as consistent (repeated) patterns of troublesome behavior, particularly is that behavior can be traced to an individual AND nothing is done to remove "the troublemaker".

Also, curious to know: A) Will the appearance of your original material in Wikipedia begin to effect "who ranks for that material"? If so, is it possible that a competitor might be acting to screw you? B) IF your material appears in Wikipedia will that result in its accelerated scraping, leading to new copyright enforcement issues? (Might be a separate cause of action here.) C) Will Wikipedia help you to identify the person who initiated the copyright violation so you can pursue that person directly, for the copyright infringement? Wikipedia (likely) has a duty - enforceable by subpoena or joinder "as a party defendant for the purpose of discovery" - to turn over all identifying information to help you enforce your copyright claim.

IF you haven't done so already - and may legally still do so - you might wish to formally file for copyright protection by recording your works at the proper offer. This will aid in the prosecution of any future claims that might arise.

Interesting final question: In the future will a case arise where an entity may not be accountable for damages for copyright violation due to protections of DMCA like laws BUT may be accoutable for paying the costs associated with cleaning up any mess associated with the publication - such as the legal fees for all the pull down notices that may be required to remove all the illegal copies generated as a result of the article first appearing "in the highly scraped and duplicated source", as for example Wikipedia? They may not be responsible for direct damages (copyright infringement) but they may be responsible for "consequential damages" in the right circumstance.