Quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
A couple of years ago a thread came up in DMOZ where the editor happened to be the owner of the content and new for a fact the website had no licsence for it.
If I remember correctly, the advice given was an editor COULD refuse the site if he had 100% proof it was illegal, it just wasnt the job of editors to go looking for proof.
|
Thats is correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by oldtimer
Does this not clearly say "material that infringes on intellectual property rights" should not be listed in DMOZ?
|
Yes, that's what it says. However it does
not say that editors should seek proof of age from webmasters - which is what the initial post was about (U.S.C. 18 Section 2257 deals with requiring proof of age in order to protect minors). Likewise it does not say that editors can or should contact webmastes in order to verify that they have a license to use images. As has already been noted here, it is not an editor's job to play the role of a cop.
IF an editor has 100% certainty of some kind of illegal situation (be it copyright theft or child porn or whatever), the correct action to take is to immediately notify a meta edior or ODP staff. The specific situation will then dictate what action will be taken. An editor should
not unilaterally take action of any kind against the alleged violator.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
