2 ms·

In what legal jurisdiction are you making such claims? This is not consistent with my understanding of US copyright law, which is what would apply in my reading

In what legal jurisdiction are you making such claims? This is not consistent with my understanding of US copyright law, which is what would apply in my reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation > The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., abbreviated WMF, is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization headquartered in San Francisco, California, and registered there as a charitable foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-US_copyrights > The Wikimedia Foundation that supports Wikipedia is located in California and the servers that host Wikipedia are located in Virginia, so Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law.

adastra22 2y ago
This isn't about copyright law. Who is responsible for content served on the internet? In pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of, it defaults to the one hosting the content. In this case, the Wikimedia foundation. In the case of US law, Section 230 exempts Wikimedia Foundation from being responsible for the content of Wikipedia, which is probably the basis for your intuition, but there is not to my knowledge any analogue to Section 230 in Indian law.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  To the degree that servers are not present in India, and WMF/Wikipedia assets are not hosted in India, I don't find that Indian courts have any means to assert their rulings over Wikipedia or WMF outside Indian IP space, to my understanding. Wikipedia just doesn't want to be blackholed in India until legal avenues are explored, so they complied with a too-broad ruling, in my opinion. The case isn't over yet. https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl > The Safe Harbor clause of Information and Technology Act, 2000, comparable to Section 230 of Communications Act of 1934 in the United States, exempts online platforms from any legal liability for third-party content generated by its users and hosted by the platform, subject to several conditions. In February 2021, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party government introduced amendments to the IT Act, imposing stricter obligations on intermediaries, including requiring them to proactively monitor content for illegal or harmful activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Act,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Act,_20...
hulitu 2y ago
> This is not consistent with my understanding of US copyright law, which is what would apply in my reading. Haha, we are talking about Indian law. And US copyright law is (thanks to MPAA, RIAA and international treaties) almost universally enforced.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Indian law only applies within India, and apparently is being unequally applied, as even India news articles about this legal case are not themselves subject to the rulings. This is selective enforcement, and isn't going to work, as the page is still available by other means, so the ruling is literally unenforceable outside India and likely also within India.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Are those news publishers named in this lawsuit? No? Then why should a subjudice gag apply to them? I've been generous in trying to engage with you in this thread, but it is hard now to not assume malintent. It's been pointed out repeatedly that this court order has nothing to do with copyright law, nothing to do with the political censorship the court cases are about, and nothing at all to do with external publishers. This is a defendant in a case being prevented from speaking about the case until the judgement of the court, as is absolutely standard practice in all commonwealth countries.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      Assuming bad faith is against HN Guidelines. Please don't do that. The editors that created the page in question are not defendants in the case, and they are the ones being censored, and Wikipedia and WMF by proxy. Even if the Indian gag order were valid within India, which remains to be tried in court, such a ruling could not possibly apply worldwide, as India could not effectively enforce such an order outside Indian networks. This type of gag order applied against Wikipedia has never happened before, nor been complied with pending trial, so no, I would not agree that this is standard practice within the Commonwealth or without.

adastra22 2y ago

This isn't about copyright law. Who is responsible for content served on the internet? In pretty much all jurisdictions I'm aware of, it defaults to the one hosting the content. In this case, the Wikimedia foundation. In the case of US law, Section 230 exempts Wikimedia Foundation from being responsible for the content of Wikipedia, which is probably the basis for your intuition, but there is not to my knowledge any analogue to Section 230 in Indian law.

aspenmayer 2y ago
To the degree that servers are not present in India, and WMF/Wikipedia assets are not hosted in India, I don't find that Indian courts have any means to assert their rulings over Wikipedia or WMF outside Indian IP space, to my understanding. Wikipedia just doesn't want to be blackholed in India until legal avenues are explored, so they complied with a too-broad ruling, in my opinion. The case isn't over yet. https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl > The Safe Harbor clause of Information and Technology Act, 2000, comparable to Section 230 of Communications Act of 1934 in the United States, exempts online platforms from any legal liability for third-party content generated by its users and hosted by the platform, subject to several conditions. In February 2021, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party government introduced amendments to the IT Act, imposing stricter obligations on intermediaries, including requiring them to proactively monitor content for illegal or harmful activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Act,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Act,_20...

hulitu 2y ago

> This is not consistent with my understanding of US copyright law, which is what would apply in my reading. Haha, we are talking about Indian law. And US copyright law is (thanks to MPAA, RIAA and international treaties) almost universally enforced.

aspenmayer 2y ago
Indian law only applies within India, and apparently is being unequally applied, as even India news articles about this legal case are not themselves subject to the rulings. This is selective enforcement, and isn't going to work, as the page is still available by other means, so the ruling is literally unenforceable outside India and likely also within India.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Are those news publishers named in this lawsuit? No? Then why should a subjudice gag apply to them? I've been generous in trying to engage with you in this thread, but it is hard now to not assume malintent. It's been pointed out repeatedly that this court order has nothing to do with copyright law, nothing to do with the political censorship the court cases are about, and nothing at all to do with external publishers. This is a defendant in a case being prevented from speaking about the case until the judgement of the court, as is absolutely standard practice in all commonwealth countries.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Assuming bad faith is against HN Guidelines. Please don't do that. The editors that created the page in question are not defendants in the case, and they are the ones being censored, and Wikipedia and WMF by proxy. Even if the Indian gag order were valid within India, which remains to be tried in court, such a ruling could not possibly apply worldwide, as India could not effectively enforce such an order outside Indian networks. This type of gag order applied against Wikipedia has never happened before, nor been complied with pending trial, so no, I would not agree that this is standard practice within the Commonwealth or without.