Hoi,
The best thing regarding the Chinese Wikipedia is that the last few months
the traffic has been growing astoundingly. This to an extend where in
traffic Chinese is now the tenth wikipedia in traffic.
In the end it is not about Baidu, it is about bringing great NPOV
information to the Chinese. When Baidu abuses our content and we continue to
grow in traffic I could not care less. Yes, it is copyright infringement and
all of us do not have "illegal" copies of music or movies on any of our
electronic devices.
Thanks,
GerardM
Hello,
Fact is that Baidu doesn't care. We don't know who backs Baidu in China
but with its prominent position it cannot be anyone very small. Maybe
some of you remember that a few months ago there were media coverage
about Hudong is going to sue Baidu because of copyright infringement,
but that also just disappeared somewhere in the Chinese juristiction
system. Rumor say that Hudong did it only to get some publicity. At this
moment there is no point to sue Baidu, neither for any Wikipedian nor
for WMF.
Greetings
Ting
On 21.04.2011 06:16, wrote RYU Cheol:
RIght, WMF is not the copyright holder of
articles as Free Software
Foundation is not of GPLed source codes.
Though WMF could give legal help for a Wikipedian to file a law suit or
WMF
could be an agent for the Wikipedian,
WMF need to approach Baidu to discuss about attribution. I don't think
Baidu
has so much difficulties to do it.
Cheol
2011/4/19 Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> 2011/4/19 Dana Lutenegger<dana.lutenegger(a)gmail.com>om>:
>> Actually, I'm pretty sure that on paper, Chinese law forbids this kind
of
>> copying without attribution. The issue is
whether or not it can be
> enforced
>> in practice. If it was strictly enforced, a lot of Baidu Baike and
Hudong
>> Wiki would have to be seriously retooled,
so I doubt it. However, there
> have
>> been recent cases in which copyright infringement claims have been
upheld
> by
>> Chinese courts, such as the infamous "Starbuck" coffee chain in
Shanghai.
> I
>> think that our legal counsel should at least be in touch with Baidu on
> this,
>> and perhaps try to get them to take down the material, attribute it
>> properly, or agree to the donation or apology letter ideas.
> The Starbuck case would be trademark infringement, not copyright, so
> isn't a particularly useful precedent. I believe China has similar
> copyright laws to the rest of the world, though (our article says they
> have signed several international agreements on the subject:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_the_People%27s_Republ…
).
Keep in mind, the WMF isn't the copyright holder, so there is a limit
to what the WMF's legal counsel can do. He could have a quiet word,
though, which could help.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Ting
Ting's Blog:
http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l