Baidupedia copyvio collections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
110 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Baidupedia copyvio collections

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Dan Rosenthal wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> But that's exactly what Baidupedia has done. The assurances to every
>> single
>>> person who has ever contributed to a WMF project are undermined as long
>> as
>>> Baidupedia uses our content while claiming it as their own, under
>> copyright.
>>> It is not copying. Copying would be merely them reusing the content. It's
>>> their claim that THEY were the authors, that it belongs to them, that it
>> is
>>> something they could potentially sue you over. That is the theft; the
>> theft
>>> of the authorship and ownership rights of the Wikipedian who wrote the
>>> content. It is fundamentally unacceptable that we support that.
>> I may be grossly misreading what you just wrote above, or just not
>> being well enough informed about all the statements about our
>> licencing system on-wiki, but just to clarify; what precise
>> "assurances" are you talking about?
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>
>>
>> The assurances that I am talking about are the statements that "by clicking
> submit you are agreeing to license your submission under the GFDL". The GFDL
> requires attribution. By requiring that our contributors use the GFDL (or
> CC-BY-SA, or any other attribution required license), we are giving an
> assurance to our contributors that their work will remain attributed to
> them, and if it is not attributed to them they shall have some sort of
> remedies available to them.
>
> By tacitly accepting Baidupedia's actions, we're undermining that assurance,
> by saying "Look, here's a wide swath of our work that is NOT attributed, and
> there's nothing that guarantees your work won't be included in it, and we're
> not going to do anything about it".
>
> That's a huge turn-off to potential contributors.
>

Thank you for clarifying that. I don't agree with the gloss you
put on it 100 %, but that is okay.

I do agree though that we need to support efforts to have
recourse against infringers.

Yours

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
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

KIZU Naoko
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
Even besides the general principle, I think it is better for us to be
proactive toward copyright a/o trademark infringement in Main Land
China, in regard of Japanese Anime and trademarks which have been
infringed in Main Land China: some copies were registered or claimed
to be the original even in the Main Land China. Consequently, the
Japanese original was or have been condemned as infringements a/o
violation of Chinese copy. There is no reason I think we'll welcome a
similar situation.

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>> If we demanded those mirrors do a lot of work, on the other hand, we'd
>> get a much lower success rate.
>>
>> The three obvious options for giving attribution:
>>
>> a) Do what everyone else does, and link to the Wikipedia article
>> histories. Except that's meaningless for most of the readers - the
>> vast majority of them who live in mainland China won't be able to
>> follow the link, and the GFDL probably frowns a bit on a list of
>> authors which you aren't allowed to see...
>>
>>
> I'm inclined to favour this option.  For the users of Baidu outside of
> the PRC there will of course be no problems.  PRC residents will still
> get their usual results to indicate a blocked site.  Each time it will
> be a reminder to them that something is wrong, and they will be more
> inclined to attempt access through alternate channels.  We shouldn't
> underestimate the ability of the average PRC computer geek to circumvent
> blocks.
>
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
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

Tim Starling-2
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> This may be a cultural difference between you and I then. In the U.S.,
> intellectual property is property.

Henning is reciting standard Stallman doctrine, which most certainly is a
U.S. point of view.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Some Americans think differently to others.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
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

Teun Spaans
In reply to this post by Robert Stojnic-2
You assume that this is the western viewpoint. As Chiba signe dthe Bern
convention, it also seems to be their official viewpoint

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Robert Stojnic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Robert Stojnic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[...] My
> >>personal POV is that we steal from China far much more than they manage
> >>to steal from us.
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Even though that is probably true, stealing from somebody because he
> >stole from you does not exactly sound like a good idea.
> >
> >
>
> I agree, the current situation is not exactly great, cooperation to
> mutual benefit is far better, but enforcing the western-viewpoint at any
> cost is by far the worst ( which is what seems to be pushed by some
> people on this mailing list ).
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
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

Effe iets anders
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
I don't think that the most important issue here is the revision
stuff. At least, it is not to me. What strikes me more is that any
adapted version would not be released to the GFDL again. Which means
that zhwikipedia can not take over that information again (with proper
history of course, to give the good example).

Having no authors on the website is something that is reversible, but
not having the license mentioned is not. The issue is much more
pressing imho. I think this would also give the chance to compliment
Baidu in some way: we would beleive that they will improve our text!

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/6/13 Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>:

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>> If we demanded those mirrors do a lot of work, on the other hand, we'd
>> get a much lower success rate.
>>
>> The three obvious options for giving attribution:
>>
>> a) Do what everyone else does, and link to the Wikipedia article
>> histories. Except that's meaningless for most of the readers - the
>> vast majority of them who live in mainland China won't be able to
>> follow the link, and the GFDL probably frowns a bit on a list of
>> authors which you aren't allowed to see...
>>
>>
> I'm inclined to favour this option.  For the users of Baidu outside of
> the PRC there will of course be no problems.  PRC residents will still
> get their usual results to indicate a blocked site.  Each time it will
> be a reminder to them that something is wrong, and they will be more
> inclined to attempt access through alternate channels.  We shouldn't
> underestimate the ability of the average PRC computer geek to circumvent
> blocks.
>
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
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 Titan Deng

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:54:55 +0800
> Von: "Titan Deng" <[hidden email]>
> An: [hidden email], "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Baidupedia copyvio collections
> I think we did send them letter to ask them to remove articles in 2006, in
> the name of Chinese Wikipedian community.
> But we got no response.

We asked them to respect GFDL or to remove the articles, to clarify this point.
--
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

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by KIZU Naoko
Yes, thank you Aphaia for pointing out this. This is also my biggest fear. Someday in the future, Baidu would accuse Wikipedia for violating their copyright (at least in China). This is why this is a foundation matter, and not a matter of individual authors.

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:18:03 +0900
> Von: Aphaia <[hidden email]>
> An: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Baidupedia copyvio collections

> Even besides the general principle, I think it is better for us to be
> proactive toward copyright a/o trademark infringement in Main Land
> China, in regard of Japanese Anime and trademarks which have been
> infringed in Main Land China: some copies were registered or claimed
> to be the original even in the Main Land China. Consequently, the
> Japanese original was or have been condemned as infringements a/o
> violation of Chinese copy. There is no reason I think we'll welcome a
> similar situation.
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >> If we demanded those mirrors do a lot of work, on the other hand, we'd
> >> get a much lower success rate.
> >>
> >> The three obvious options for giving attribution:
> >>
> >> a) Do what everyone else does, and link to the Wikipedia article
> >> histories. Except that's meaningless for most of the readers - the
> >> vast majority of them who live in mainland China won't be able to
> >> follow the link, and the GFDL probably frowns a bit on a list of
> >> authors which you aren't allowed to see...
> >>
> >>
> > I'm inclined to favour this option.  For the users of Baidu outside of
> > the PRC there will of course be no problems.  PRC residents will still
> > get their usual results to indicate a blocked site.  Each time it will
> > be a reminder to them that something is wrong, and they will be more
> > inclined to attempt access through alternate channels.  We shouldn't
> > underestimate the ability of the average PRC computer geek to circumvent
> > blocks.
> >
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> KIZU Naoko
> http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
> Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--
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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
effe iets anders wrote:
> I don't think that the most important issue here is the revision
> stuff. At least, it is not to me. What strikes me more is that any
> adapted version would not be released to the GFDL again. Which means
> that zhwikipedia can not take over that information again (with proper
> history of course, to give the good example).
>  
This is a good point.  Nevertheless, it could be argued that since using
our material requires that anyone who uses it must put their derivative
under GFDL we can use it whether they explicitly identify the licence or
not.  In the same way that copyrights are automatic without the need to
claim or register, so too would the application of GFDL.  Their GFDL
rights could be terminated for breach of licence, but the termination
clause still allows users of their material to keep the licence if they
are compliant with it.
> Having no authors on the website is something that is reversible, but
> not having the license mentioned is not. The issue is much more
> pressing imho. I think this would also give the chance to compliment
> Baidu in some way: we would beleive that they will improve our text!
>
>  
Sorry to say this, but I think you mean "complement".  They don't
deserve "compliments" for their behaviour. ;-)
Mixing those two up is a common error, even among native English speakers

We should feel free to use their material when it is substantially based
on a Wikipedia article.  We should then give due credit to Baidu in the
article's history.  They wouldn't dare sue us for that! (Evil :-P )  
Defending a legal action is much easier than prosecuting one.

Naturally a complementary relationship would be preferable.

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

Dan Rosenthal

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>> Having no authors on the website is something that is reversible, but
>> not having the license mentioned is not. The issue is much more
>> pressing imho. I think this would also give the chance to compliment
>> Baidu in some way: we would beleive that they will improve our text!
>>
>>
> Sorry to say this, but I think you mean "complement".  They don't
> deserve "compliments" for their behaviour. ;-)
> Mixing those two up is a common error, even among native English  
> speakers
>
> We should feel free to use their material when it is substantially  
> based
> on a Wikipedia article.  We should then give due credit to Baidu in  
> the
> article's history.  They wouldn't dare sue us for that! (Evil :-P )
> Defending a legal action is much easier than prosecuting one.
>
> Naturally a complementary relationship would be preferable.
>
> Ec

Complementary is only a step or two away from parasitic (such as their  
relationship to us), but I too agree with this that where they have  
worthwhile material that is something we can import under the GFDL, we  
should do so. And if they don't like it, we can kindly point out that  
they're doing the same to us but violating the license terms as well.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
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

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
2008/6/12 Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>:

> I'm inclined to favour this option.  For the users of Baidu outside of
> the PRC there will of course be no problems.  PRC residents will still
> get their usual results to indicate a blocked site.  Each time it will
> be a reminder to them that something is wrong, and they will be more
> inclined to attempt access through alternate channels.  We shouldn't
> underestimate the ability of the average PRC computer geek to circumvent
> blocks.

If Baidu is indeed actively vetting its material to ensure compliance
with the firewall, I doubt they'd be happy about leaving in a link to
a blocked site!

--
- Andrew Gray
 [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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 Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Andrew Gray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2008/6/12 Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I'm inclined to favour this option.  For the users of Baidu outside of
>> the PRC there will of course be no problems.  PRC residents will still
>> get their usual results to indicate a blocked site.  Each time it will
>> be a reminder to them that something is wrong, and they will be more
>> inclined to attempt access through alternate channels.  We shouldn't
>> underestimate the ability of the average PRC computer geek to circumvent
>> blocks.
>
> If Baidu is indeed actively vetting its material to ensure compliance
> with the firewall, I doubt they'd be happy about leaving in a link to
> a blocked site!

That actually might be the easiest solution, though, because it
doesn't cause any loss of face on their part.

It's not a Great Firewall policy problem to link to something outside
it, which is blocked, as far as I know (as far as westerners have
found out about what the policies really are and written about it).


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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

Ryan Lomonaco
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Complementary is only a step or two away from parasitic (such as their
> relationship to us), but I too agree with this that where they have
> worthwhile material that is something we can import under the GFDL, we
> should do so. And if they don't like it, we can kindly point out that
> they're doing the same to us but violating the license terms as well.
>
> -Dan


I'm not sure that's morally correct.  I don't feel it's right to release a
Baidupedia contributor's edits under the GFDL when they didn't know that the
original material was available under the GFDL, or that their edits would be
released as such.  Of course, if Baidu agreed to use GFDL fairly, we could
use the edits legally, because Baidu presumably holds for itself copyright
to contributions.

What also should be considered if we ever went down this road is that we're
not the only source they're "borrowing" from; apparently they're also using
other sources like the Chinese encyclopedia Hoodong, and we could
inadvertently violate their copyrights by using Baidu's altered versions.

--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
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

Dan Rosenthal
I'd certainly ask for advice from counsel on this, but I would want to  
know: "given that Baidupedia is starting with GFDL content, does the  
fact that they obscure that their content is licensed under the GFDL  
prevent all subsequent derivative edits from also being unknowingly  
licensed under the GFDL?"

Essentially, if you are making a derivative work of a viral/share-
alike/GFDL style content, but you do not know what the status of the  
original was (and did not agree to license your content under the  
GFDL), what is the copyright status of the newly created derivative  
work?

We'd need to know the answer to that question before doing a "reverse  
Baidupedia". If the answer is "It's under the GFDL" then we're ok to  
proceed (ignoring for a second the moral issues). If the answer is  
something other than that, we may not be able to do it.

-Dan


On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Ryan wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Dan Rosenthal  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Complementary is only a step or two away from parasitic (such as  
>> their
>> relationship to us), but I too agree with this that where they have
>> worthwhile material that is something we can import under the GFDL,  
>> we
>> should do so. And if they don't like it, we can kindly point out that
>> they're doing the same to us but violating the license terms as well.
>>
>> -Dan
>
>
> I'm not sure that's morally correct.  I don't feel it's right to  
> release a
> Baidupedia contributor's edits under the GFDL when they didn't know  
> that the
> original material was available under the GFDL, or that their edits  
> would be
> released as such.  Of course, if Baidu agreed to use GFDL fairly, we  
> could
> use the edits legally, because Baidu presumably holds for itself  
> copyright
> to contributions.
>
> What also should be considered if we ever went down this road is  
> that we're
> not the only source they're "borrowing" from; apparently they're  
> also using
> other sources like the Chinese encyclopedia Hoodong, and we could
> inadvertently violate their copyrights by using Baidu's altered  
> versions.
>
> --
> [[User:Ral315]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
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 Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd certainly ask for advice from counsel on this, but I would want to
> know: "given that Baidupedia is starting with GFDL content, does the
> fact that they obscure that their content is licensed under the GFDL
> prevent all subsequent derivative edits from also being unknowingly
> licensed under the GFDL?"
>
> Essentially, if you are making a derivative work of a viral/share-
> alike/GFDL style content, but you do not know what the status of the
> original was (and did not agree to license your content under the
> GFDL), what is the copyright status of the newly created derivative
> work?
>
> We'd need to know the answer to that question before doing a "reverse
> Baidupedia". If the answer is "It's under the GFDL" then we're ok to
> proceed (ignoring for a second the moral issues). If the answer is
> something other than that, we may not be able to do it.

In contract terms, this seems like a classic failure of meeting of the
minds - if the secondary contributor is unaware of the original
license on the material, then they cannot have agreed to the license,
and likely cannot be held to it.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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

Dan Rosenthal
If they  (the contributor) were, or should have been on notice that  
the material came from Wikipedia or was under a free license, there  
may not be an offer/acceptance issue (Baidupedia knows or reasonably  
should know that they are violating the license, and if the  
contributor knows or should know it too, then the contract is not void  
for lack of acceptance, though it may be void for other reasons).

Another concern is then if the new derivative is not under the GFDL,  
does that give rise to copyright infringement? Or does the old content  
divorce itself from the new content?

We've always thought in terms of "What if a static source uses our  
content without attribution" but how do things change when it is a  
collaborative or dynamic site that uses our content without attribution?

-Dan
On Jun 13, 2008, at 4:25 PM, George Herbert wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Dan Rosenthal  
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'd certainly ask for advice from counsel on this, but I would want  
>> to
>> know: "given that Baidupedia is starting with GFDL content, does the
>> fact that they obscure that their content is licensed under the GFDL
>> prevent all subsequent derivative edits from also being unknowingly
>> licensed under the GFDL?"
>>
>> Essentially, if you are making a derivative work of a viral/share-
>> alike/GFDL style content, but you do not know what the status of the
>> original was (and did not agree to license your content under the
>> GFDL), what is the copyright status of the newly created derivative
>> work?
>>
>> We'd need to know the answer to that question before doing a "reverse
>> Baidupedia". If the answer is "It's under the GFDL" then we're ok to
>> proceed (ignoring for a second the moral issues). If the answer is
>> something other than that, we may not be able to do it.
>
> In contract terms, this seems like a classic failure of meeting of the
> minds - if the secondary contributor is unaware of the original
> license on the material, then they cannot have agreed to the license,
> and likely cannot be held to it.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
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 Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If they  (the contributor) were, or should have been on notice that
> the material came from Wikipedia or was under a free license, there
> may not be an offer/acceptance issue (Baidupedia knows or reasonably
> should know that they are violating the license, and if the
> contributor knows or should know it too, then the contract is not void
> for lack of acceptance, though it may be void for other reasons).

We can't assume that they were or should have been on notice.

Baidupedia is, but their users aren't necessarily.

> Another concern is then if the new derivative is not under the GFDL,
> does that give rise to copyright infringement? Or does the old content
> divorce itself from the new content?
>
> We've always thought in terms of "What if a static source uses our
> content without attribution" but how do things change when it is a
> collaborative or dynamic site that uses our content without attribution?

Right, this opens up a whole can of worms.

Pushing Baidu to fix it, from the top down and correctly, is sort of important.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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 George William Herbert
George Herbert wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>  
>> I'd certainly ask for advice from counsel on this, but I would want to
>> know: "given that Baidupedia is starting with GFDL content, does the
>> fact that they obscure that their content is licensed under the GFDL
>> prevent all subsequent derivative edits from also being unknowingly
>> licensed under the GFDL?"
>>
>> Essentially, if you are making a derivative work of a viral/share-
>> alike/GFDL style content, but you do not know what the status of the
>> original was (and did not agree to license your content under the
>> GFDL), what is the copyright status of the newly created derivative
>> work?
>>
>> We'd need to know the answer to that question before doing a "reverse
>> Baidupedia". If the answer is "It's under the GFDL" then we're ok to
>> proceed (ignoring for a second the moral issues). If the answer is
>> something other than that, we may not be able to do it.
>>    
> In contract terms, this seems like a classic failure of meeting of the
> minds - if the secondary contributor is unaware of the original
> license on the material, then they cannot have agreed to the license,
> and likely cannot be held to it.
>  
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.

Dan makes a good point about legal counsel.  A responsible Board member
needs to give closer scrutiny to legal implications before moving from
proposal to implementation.  Even then, legal advice is not completely
binding.  Reading and literally applying statutes in isolation from
their context can produce bizarre results. Case law and the probability
of adverse effects also play a role, as does the collective tolerance of
the Board for what could happen.

In a mailing-list discussion we need to explore all possibilities.  A
premature determination that something is illegal or won't work closes
the opportunity to follow that less travelled road that everyone has
been overlooking.  NPOV discussions are often best resolved by looking
for that alternative wording that will make both sides happy.

While the moral arguments need to be considered we should not extend
them to the point of self-righteousness.  For now we don't have a strong
enough factual framework to derive a meaningful moral conclusion.

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

Dan Rosenthal
Agreed, and I think we've come to some of the following conclusions:

1) What Baidupedia is doing is wrong.
2) Because of the Great Firewall, taking down Baidupedia is a net  
negative for us.
2.5) Therefore, we don't want them to be taken down.
3) We want to find a way to bring Baidupedia into compliance with the  
GFDL.
4) We also potentially want to use some of Baidupedia's content for  
ourselves too.
5) Because Baidupedia is a collaborative site instead of a static  
site, it faces different operational and legal implications than other  
cases.


Working from those we can start getting towards an ideal plan of  
action while avoiding the pitfalls of both jumping to decisions, and  
stagnation and inaction.


-Dan

On Jun 13, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> George Herbert wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> I'd certainly ask for advice from counsel on this, but I would  
>>> want to
>>> know: "given that Baidupedia is starting with GFDL content, does the
>>> fact that they obscure that their content is licensed under the GFDL
>>> prevent all subsequent derivative edits from also being unknowingly
>>> licensed under the GFDL?"
>>>
>>> Essentially, if you are making a derivative work of a viral/share-
>>> alike/GFDL style content, but you do not know what the status of the
>>> original was (and did not agree to license your content under the
>>> GFDL), what is the copyright status of the newly created derivative
>>> work?
>>>
>>> We'd need to know the answer to that question before doing a  
>>> "reverse
>>> Baidupedia". If the answer is "It's under the GFDL" then we're ok to
>>> proceed (ignoring for a second the moral issues). If the answer is
>>> something other than that, we may not be able to do it.
>>>
>> In contract terms, this seems like a classic failure of meeting of  
>> the
>> minds - if the secondary contributor is unaware of the original
>> license on the material, then they cannot have agreed to the license,
>> and likely cannot be held to it.
>>
> 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.
>
> Dan makes a good point about legal counsel.  A responsible Board  
> member
> needs to give closer scrutiny to legal implications before moving from
> proposal to implementation.  Even then, legal advice is not completely
> binding.  Reading and literally applying statutes in isolation from
> their context can produce bizarre results. Case law and the  
> probability
> of adverse effects also play a role, as does the collective  
> tolerance of
> the Board for what could happen.
>
> In a mailing-list discussion we need to explore all possibilities.  A
> premature determination that something is illegal or won't work closes
> the opportunity to follow that less travelled road that everyone has
> been overlooking.  NPOV discussions are often best resolved by looking
> for that alternative wording that will make both sides happy.
>
> While the moral arguments need to be considered we should not extend
> them to the point of self-righteousness.  For now we don't have a  
> strong
> enough factual framework to derive a meaningful moral conclusion.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
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
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:54:41 -0400
> Von: Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>
> An: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] Baidupedia copyvio collections

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

Ting Chen-2
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge

-------- 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).

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
123456