Baidupedia copyvio collections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
110 messages Options
1 ... 3456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Ray Saintonge
Ting Chen wrote:

> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>  
>> Datum: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:32:14 -0700
>> Von: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
>> An: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
>> Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Baidupedia copyvio collections
>> Perhaps one of our Chinese speakers can explain just what Baidu claims
>> for copyright.  If they purport to retain it for themselves, and deny
>> any rights to their own contributors it may be that the rights of those
>> contributors are not legally relevant. It strikes me as unlikely that
>> they would have any scheme in place that recognizes any rights for their
>> contributors.
>>    
> The copyright policy of Baidu is a typical nothing-saying-we-own-everything-but-we-are-not-responsible-for-everything-muddy-policy.
>
> In total one can say:
> 1). Everything published on Baidu is copyrighted by Baidu. Without the approval of Baidu using any of their content would be pursued with lawsuit. (未经百度许可,任何人不得擅自(包括但不限于:以非法的方式复制、传播、展示、镜像、上载、下载)使用。否则,百度将依法追究法律责任。 This passage is from their copyright declaration).
> 2). The contributors for Baidupedia is responsible for not violating copyrights of other people. Baidu is not responsible for that. (百度百科的用户不得侵犯包括他人的著作权在内的知识产权以及其他权利。由于用户的相关帖子引起的任何知识产权纠纷,其责任在于用户本人,与百度百科无关。百度百科的用户未经著作权人的同意,对他人的作品进行全部或部分的复制,传播,拷贝,有可能侵害到他人的著作权时,不得把相关内容发布到百度百科上。These two sentences are from their user guide).
>
>  
Thanks.  That's exactly what I wanted to know.

By stating that they own everything it makes it easier for us.  If they
are misrepresenting copyrights to the extent that their users will rely
on this that it is a problem between them and their contributors.  We
don't need to speculate about what might be happening there.

The second quote seems to say that they are trying to have it both
ways.  Claiming copyright (presumably without crediting any of their
contributors) suggests that they have some degree of control over the
content.  Any claim that they are eligible for the defence of being an
innocent ISP would probably not be valid.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Ting Chen-2
Ting Chen wrote:
>> Datum: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:54:41 -0400
>> Von: Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]
> 1) What Baidupedia is doing is wrong.
>  
> Ack
>> 2) Because of the Great Firewall, taking down Baidupedia is a net  negative for us.
>>    
> That I don't agree. Fact is, we don't have the power to take it down, and we don't care if it is down or not. If Baidu is down or not doesn't have an influence on us. Baidu is not a mirror of Wikipedia. We have had contact with other agencies in China to build up a mirror (the foundation was informed about these contacts), but because of the issue of the GFW the contacts all run dead. We don't consider Baidu as a collaboration, we also don't consider them as a potential collaborator.
>  
The issue is one of free licensing.  Under GFDL they have every right to
use our material.  If they play by the rules we have the right to use
theirs.  They are not bound to follow NPOV on their site, because it's
their site.  Whether it's editorially sound to use their material is
quite a different question from having a legal right to use that
material.  Our efforts to set up a mirror in China have nothing to do
with Baidupedia.
>> 3) We want to find a way to bring Baidupedia into compliance with the GFDL.
>>    
> That would be fine. But that would not happen. Baidu uses a very muddy copyright policy porpusely, this was confirmed from inofficial channel.
>  

Bringing them into compliance may require that they move away from such
a muddy copyright policy.  It doesn't help to be pessimistic about our
prospects; that makes it difficult to look for possible solutions.
>> 4) We also potentially want to use some of Baidupedia's content for ourselves too.
>>    
> No, never. Because every content on Baidu is potentially copyviod, contents from Baidu on Wikipedia is a kill-argument. Whenever I see that the content originate from Baidu it is for me a kill creteria.
>  

That's a big leap between potentially copyvio and factually copyvio.  
This argument looks highly prejudicial since it leaves no room to
consider the material on its own merits.  If their article has
significantly drawn on Wikipedia there may be implicit GFDL even if they
don't say so.  Also, drawing on their information and putting it in our
own words would not be a copyvio because ideas are not copyrightable.
>> 5) Because Baidupedia is a collaborative site instead of a static  
>> site, it faces different operational and legal implications than other  
>> cases.
>>    
> Maybe in the future once a day. But now they don't see any neccesity to change their policy. To device a way to let them see the neccesity is maybe a method we should search for.

I think that that last point is exactly where we should be heading.  
They may not now see any necessity to change policy; we just need to
find a convincing argument for change.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Ting Chen-2
Hello Ray,

to be short, I fully agree with you.

Greetings
Ting

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:42:54 -0700
> Von: Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
> An: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Baidupedia copyvio collections

> Ting Chen wrote:
> >> Datum: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:54:41 -0400
> >> Von: Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]
> > 1) What Baidupedia is doing is wrong.
> >  
> > Ack
> >> 2) Because of the Great Firewall, taking down Baidupedia is a net
> negative for us.
> >>    
> > That I don't agree. Fact is, we don't have the power to take it down,
> and we don't care if it is down or not. If Baidu is down or not doesn't have
> an influence on us. Baidu is not a mirror of Wikipedia. We have had contact
> with other agencies in China to build up a mirror (the foundation was
> informed about these contacts), but because of the issue of the GFW the
> contacts all run dead. We don't consider Baidu as a collaboration, we also don't
> consider them as a potential collaborator.
> >  
> The issue is one of free licensing.  Under GFDL they have every right to
> use our material.  If they play by the rules we have the right to use
> theirs.  They are not bound to follow NPOV on their site, because it's
> their site.  Whether it's editorially sound to use their material is
> quite a different question from having a legal right to use that
> material.  Our efforts to set up a mirror in China have nothing to do
> with Baidupedia.
> >> 3) We want to find a way to bring Baidupedia into compliance with the
> GFDL.
> >>    
> > That would be fine. But that would not happen. Baidu uses a very muddy
> copyright policy porpusely, this was confirmed from inofficial channel.
> >  
>
> Bringing them into compliance may require that they move away from such
> a muddy copyright policy.  It doesn't help to be pessimistic about our
> prospects; that makes it difficult to look for possible solutions.
> >> 4) We also potentially want to use some of Baidupedia's content for
> ourselves too.
> >>    
> > No, never. Because every content on Baidu is potentially copyviod,
> contents from Baidu on Wikipedia is a kill-argument. Whenever I see that the
> content originate from Baidu it is for me a kill creteria.
> >  
>
> That's a big leap between potentially copyvio and factually copyvio.  
> This argument looks highly prejudicial since it leaves no room to
> consider the material on its own merits.  If their article has
> significantly drawn on Wikipedia there may be implicit GFDL even if they
> don't say so.  Also, drawing on their information and putting it in our
> own words would not be a copyvio because ideas are not copyrightable.
> >> 5) Because Baidupedia is a collaborative site instead of a static  
> >> site, it faces different operational and legal implications than other
> >> cases.
> >>    
> > Maybe in the future once a day. But now they don't see any neccesity to
> change their policy. To device a way to let them see the neccesity is maybe
> a method we should search for.
>
> I think that that last point is exactly where we should be heading.  
> They may not now see any necessity to change policy; we just need to
> find a convincing argument for change.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Henning Schlottmann
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Henning Schlottmann
> <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I think it is a safe bet, that
>> Baidu will not attribute the content to Wikipedia authors and will not
>> put parts of their system under the GFDL.
>
> You're setting up a false dichotomy here.  The options are not "Allow
> Baidu to do whatever they want" and "Deny China any access to
> Wikipedia articles", with nothing in between.

According to Titan Deng, that's what the zh-Wikipedians demanded.

> Baidu could entirely credibly copy or mirror over Wikipedia articles,
> with GFDL and author history, just as easily as their users cut and
> paste now.  If the political situation is such that they can't grab
> "the whole set" of wikipedia articles, that's unfortunate, but doesn't
> prevent them from taking a subset *under the licenses and with
> credit*.

They can't: They can't acknowledge that content came from a banned
source and they certainly won't adopt a policy of free licenses, not
even for a small part of their content. They want to own and control all
their content.

And I do not advocate to even discuss that with Baidu - because if they
get under pressure, they will at best abandon the content. My position
is to keep that issue a low profile - essentially: ignore it - in order
to give the people in mainland China access to as much of our content as
possible, even for the price of breaking the law and the licenses. This
is a political decision.

The management at Baidu is not important for our issue at hand. The
three relevant groups are the authors in the zh-WP, individuals who copy
WP-content to Baidupedia and the general public in the PRC. Let
individuals take as much as they want and can safely use. Let them copy
it into Baidupedia. Let them do whatever necessary to get our content
inside the country. Let them use Baidupedia as Trojan horse. Screw the
license stuff. Getting information to the people - that's the mission of
Wikipedia. The license is just a means to that end, and could and should
be ignored where counter indicated by reality.

Ciao Henning

PS: I'm from Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall and the
Iron Curtain fell. The dissident groups in East-Germany needed nothing
as much as information. Some Westerners smuggled political magazines
into the country. The western public TV-stations build antennas to reach
as much of eastern Germany as possible and had special shows that were
targeted at Eastern Germany. The smuggled magazines were given from hand
to hand and copied (by hand, no photocopy machines were available in
eastern Germany), the West-German TV-stations bought international
licenses only for their "own" audience in Western
Germany and broadcasted the content to East-Germany as well.

Illegal? Sure - but it helped at least a tiny bit.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Titan Deng
2008/6/15 Henning Schlottmann <[hidden email]>:

> George Herbert wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Henning Schlottmann
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >> I think it is a safe bet, that
> >> Baidu will not attribute the content to Wikipedia authors and will not
> >> put parts of their system under the GFDL.
> >
> > You're setting up a false dichotomy here.  The options are not "Allow
> > Baidu to do whatever they want" and "Deny China any access to
> > Wikipedia articles", with nothing in between.
>
> According to Titan Deng, that's what the zh-Wikipedians demanded.
>

I didn't say we Chinese Wikipedians ever tried to "Deny China any access to
Wikipedia articles".
I need to clarify this.
I am here reporting what we are doing, but please don't put your words in my
mouth.

Thanks.

Titan


> > Baidu could entirely credibly copy or mirror over Wikipedia articles,
> > with GFDL and author history, just as easily as their users cut and
> > paste now.  If the political situation is such that they can't grab
> > "the whole set" of wikipedia articles, that's unfortunate, but doesn't
> > prevent them from taking a subset *under the licenses and with
> > credit*.
>
> They can't: They can't acknowledge that content came from a banned
> source and they certainly won't adopt a policy of free licenses, not
> even for a small part of their content. They want to own and control all
> their content.
>
> And I do not advocate to even discuss that with Baidu - because if they
> get under pressure, they will at best abandon the content. My position
> is to keep that issue a low profile - essentially: ignore it - in order
> to give the people in mainland China access to as much of our content as
> possible, even for the price of breaking the law and the licenses. This
> is a political decision.
>
> The management at Baidu is not important for our issue at hand. The
> three relevant groups are the authors in the zh-WP, individuals who copy
> WP-content to Baidupedia and the general public in the PRC. Let
> individuals take as much as they want and can safely use. Let them copy
> it into Baidupedia. Let them do whatever necessary to get our content
> inside the country. Let them use Baidupedia as Trojan horse. Screw the
> license stuff. Getting information to the people - that's the mission of
> Wikipedia. The license is just a means to that end, and could and should
> be ignored where counter indicated by reality.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
> PS: I'm from Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall and the
> Iron Curtain fell. The dissident groups in East-Germany needed nothing
> as much as information. Some Westerners smuggled political magazines
> into the country. The western public TV-stations build antennas to reach
> as much of eastern Germany as possible and had special shows that were
> targeted at Eastern Germany. The smuggled magazines were given from hand
> to hand and copied (by hand, no photocopy machines were available in
> eastern Germany), the West-German TV-stations bought international
> licenses only for their "own" audience in Western
> Germany and broadcasted the content to East-Germany as well.
>
> Illegal? Sure - but it helped at least a tiny bit.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Support the Wikimedia Foundation: http://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Henning Schlottmann
Henning Schlottmann wrote:

> George Herbert wrote:
>  
>> Baidu could entirely credibly copy or mirror over Wikipedia articles,
>> with GFDL and author history, just as easily as their users cut and
>> paste now.  If the political situation is such that they can't grab
>> "the whole set" of wikipedia articles, that's unfortunate, but doesn't
>> prevent them from taking a subset *under the licenses and with
>> credit*.
>>    
> They can't: They can't acknowledge that content came from a banned
> source and they certainly won't adopt a policy of free licenses, not
> even for a small part of their content. They want to own and control all
> their content.
>  
We're not asking them to acknowledge that it's from a banned site, only
that it's from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia may in fact be banned but where is
there any acknowledgement from the PRC government that it is?  Without
an explicit statement from them it's hard to view the banning as
anything other than a random act of bureaucracy.

Being so certain that they won't adopt free licences or that they want
absolute ownership prejudicially cuts out a lot of possible negotiating
positions.  That hurts us more than it hurts them.
> And I do not advocate to even discuss that with Baidu - because if they
> get under pressure, they will at best abandon the content. My position
> is to keep that issue a low profile - essentially: ignore it - in order
> to give the people in mainland China access to as much of our content as
> possible, even for the price of breaking the law and the licenses. This
> is a political decision.
>  

That sounds a lot like the political decision of a certain powerful
government that refuses to speak with its enemies.  By taking such a
hard line it manages to make things worse.  Saying that we would be
giving them access to as much of our content as possible is questionable
when they can edit the material in a way that will best impose their
point of view.  If Baidu is so distorting the information a high profile
is warranted to let the Chinese people know that they are not getting
the whole story.  The law (whose?) and the licences are only a means to
the end of making knowledge available.

> The management at Baidu is not important for our issue at hand. The
> three relevant groups are the authors in the zh-WP, individuals who copy
> WP-content to Baidupedia and the general public in the PRC. Let
> individuals take as much as they want and can safely use. Let them copy
> it into Baidupedia. Let them do whatever necessary to get our content
> inside the country. Let them use Baidupedia as Trojan horse. Screw the
> license stuff. Getting information to the people - that's the mission of
> Wikipedia. The license is just a means to that end, and could and should
> be ignored where counter indicated by reality.
>  

Your Trojan horse is full of dead soldiers.

> PS: I'm from Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall and the
> Iron Curtain fell. The dissident groups in East-Germany needed nothing
> as much as information. Some Westerners smuggled political magazines
> into the country. The western public TV-stations build antennas to reach
> as much of eastern Germany as possible and had special shows that were
> targeted at Eastern Germany. The smuggled magazines were given from hand
> to hand and copied (by hand, no photocopy machines were available in
> eastern Germany), the West-German TV-stations bought international
> licenses only for their "own" audience in Western
> Germany and broadcasted the content to East-Germany as well.
>  

Your analogy would only be valid if the GDR government had been in
charge of making the copies of the magazine articles.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Henning Schlottmann

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:25:05 +0200
> Von: Henning Schlottmann <[hidden email]>
> An: [hidden email]
> Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Baidupedia copyvio collections

> > You're setting up a false dichotomy here.  The options are not "Allow
> > Baidu to do whatever they want" and "Deny China any access to
> > Wikipedia articles", with nothing in between.
> According to Titan Deng, that's what the zh-Wikipedians demanded.

No, that's definitively wrong. We search every possibility to let china get access of our content, even part of it. We are even content if Baidu just mention that some content are under GFDL, we don't even demand that they note the content is from Wikipedia. The reason why we are so much concerned about Baidu is that we see here a serious threat against us by the policy of Baidu, as I have already described in other replies.

> They can't: They can't acknowledge that content came from a banned
> source and they certainly won't adopt a policy of free licenses, not
> even for a small part of their content. They want to own and control all
> their content.

Oh they can. There are quite a number of articles on Baidu with a source remark of Wikipedia. There is at least one case we know of that an official chinese government website remarks the source as Wikipedia.

> PS: I'm from Germany. Almost twenty years ago, the Berlin Wall and the
> Iron Curtain fell. ...

The situation is a different one. Take parallels in history is mostly dangerous and incorrect. China is not a communist country any more though its governing party call itself communist. And Baidu is a company, which misuses law (or rather the lack of law in this case) to make business.

Greetings
Ting
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> The issue is one of free licensing.  Under GFDL they have every
> right to use our material.

For us, it is an issue of free licensing.  But in order to achieve
any change in Baidu, we need to start out from a neutral point of
view (NPOV) that is common to us and them.  We might view Baidu as
a surrogate of an encyclopedia in non-free country, but the owners
are hardly marketing "Baidu, the non-free encyclopedia".

Further, I guess they are not very likely to post a policy stating
"you are not allowed to copy material from Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia", because then their users would start to ask "what
is Wikipedia? why can I not access that website? is their content
so good that the policy must warn against copying stuff from
them?".  The Chinese government has no direct interest to market
themselves as non-free.

So, what could be a common point of view?  I don't know, but
freedom of speech or GNU's sense of freedom doesn't sound very
likely.  I guess one could start with "it is important for China
to enjoy free trade, and thus to be a part of WTO and WIPO" and
continue to "in order to comply with WIPO agreements, Chinese
government owned websites need to fully respect the copyright of
foreign works.  Mechanisms for correcting copyright mistakes, such
as taking down copyrighted material, have to be functional and
efficient".  In order to push such issues forward, I believe there
must be some muscle in the shape of WIPO sanctions.  But do we
have that muscle?  What do we know about WIPO?  Do we need to join
forces with others who might be fighting Chinese copyright
violations, such as RIAA and Microsoft?  This feels alien.



--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Ting Chen-2
> I guess one could start with "it is important for China
> to enjoy free trade, and thus to be a part of WTO and WIPO" and
> continue to "in order to comply with WIPO agreements, Chinese
> government owned websites need to fully respect the copyright of
> foreign works.

First of all, Baidu is not chinese government owned. It is a private company.

> Do we need to join
> forces with others who might be fighting Chinese copyright
> violations, such as RIAA and Microsoft?  This feels alien.

I see us more in the line of FSF.

Greetings
Ting
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

George William Herbert
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Ting Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I guess one could start with "it is important for China
>> to enjoy free trade, and thus to be a part of WTO and WIPO" and
>> continue to "in order to comply with WIPO agreements, Chinese
>> government owned websites need to fully respect the copyright of
>> foreign works.
>
> First of all, Baidu is not chinese government owned. It is a private company.

Conveniently, a private company with multiple western directors and a
listing on the US stock exchanges, which forces certain SEC regulation
compliance...


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1 ... 3456