http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html "Two Chinese writers’ groups claim that Google has scanned Chinese works into an electronic database in violation of international copyright standards. The organizations are urging China’s authors to step forward and defend their rights.
“Google has seriously violated the copyrights of Chinese authors. That is an undeniable fact,” Chen Qirong, a spokesman for the China Writers’ Association, said by telephone. The group says it represents nearly 9,000 writers."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc1cfda-d128-11de-b591-00144feabdc0.html "Under the new settlement, works will only be included in the ambitious digital project if they have been registered in the US, or come from the UK, Australia and Canada – countries which have “contributed the largest number of English-language works to American libraries,” according to the parties to the settlement. The similarities in their legal systems and the structure of their publishing industries made it appropriate for these countries to be included, according to the backers of the settlement.
The changes will mean that 95 per cent of all foreign works will no longer be included in Google’s digital book archive, said Richard Sarnoff, chairman of the Association of American Publishers."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidupedia#Copyright and http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2007/gb20071113_725400.htm in case anyone has forgotten.)
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
Carcharoth
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/technology/internet/31google.html "Two Chinese writers’ groups claim that Google has scanned Chinese works into an electronic database in violation of international copyright standards. The organizations are urging China’s authors to step forward and defend their rights.
“Google has seriously violated the copyrights of Chinese authors. That is an undeniable fact,” Chen Qirong, a spokesman for the China Writers’ Association, said by telephone. The group says it represents nearly 9,000 writers."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afc1cfda-d128-11de-b591-00144feabdc0.html "Under the new settlement, works will only be included in the ambitious digital project if they have been registered in the US, or come from the UK, Australia and Canada – countries which have “contributed the largest number of English-language works to American libraries,” according to the parties to the settlement. The similarities in their legal systems and the structure of their publishing industries made it appropriate for these countries to be included, according to the backers of the settlement.
The changes will mean that 95 per cent of all foreign works will no longer be included in Google’s digital book archive, said Richard Sarnoff, chairman of the Association of American Publishers."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidupedia#Copyright and http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2007/gb20071113_725400.htm in case anyone has forgotten.)
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
Carcharoth
The irony of Chinese citizens expecting and getting international copyright to work for them against an (arguably) publicly beneficial project, while the same country condones violation of international copyright & direct harm to a beneficial public project.
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
IMHO, the google books settlement, and all its twists and turns, has big implications for us, particularly in increasing the quality of our referencing.
Steve
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
IMHO, the google books settlement, and all its twists and turns, has big implications for us, particularly in increasing the quality of our referencing.
Yeah, but if someone could spell it out in detail, that would be good.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
IMHO, the google books settlement, and all its twists and turns, has big implications for us, particularly in increasing the quality of our referencing.
Yeah, but if someone could spell it out in detail, that would be good.
Carcharoth
The Chinese thing is bad for us because copyright is becoming a one-way street. What good is the GFDL/CC if we cannot enforce it but proprietary-licensing-but-copyright-infringing parties can enforce theirs? Heads we win, tails you lose...
As for Google Books's settlements: I don't know. I don't think I've seen anyone cover the consequences for Wikipedia.
Obviously we benefit in the short-term from having in-copyright books (as well as all the public domain books which we could've expected to appear online sooner or later), since most Wikipedians will only use what's in Google.
But what're the long-term costs? As I understand it, if the settlement is allowed to go through, it means anyone wanting to similarly use orphan works or in-copyright works in general will have to undergo a similar notification process and set up similar payment structures, a barrier which will keep out competitors. And many of the digitized works will be part of a wave of new public domain works is coming up in the next 2 or 3 decades, and since we can expect Google to be around then, we might also expect to see Google lined up with Disney et al in lobbying for a new Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Google's lobbying prowess is not trivial.
But besides that, I can't really think of any downsides. The community isn't planning on going into digitizing & distributing non-Free copyrighted books, so it doesn't really matter to us. Project Gutenberg likewise, and the Internet Archive is either covered by its special legal loopholes or likely isn't too bothered by having to keep private its archived books. (It already keeps private countless webpages; on a personal note, it's very frustrating to know the IA has backups of a webpage you want, but that years later someone bought the domain and put up a narrow robots.txt so you can't get at it.)
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
What's the context here for Wikipedia?
IMHO, the google books settlement, and all its twists and turns, has big implications for us, particularly in increasing the quality of our referencing.
What about this one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8420876.stm
"Fine for Google over French books
A Paris court has found Google guilty of copyright infringement in a ruling which could have ramifications for its plans to digitise the world's books."
Full article at the link.
Carcharoth