Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
As an example of lifting, see their versionhttp://baike.baidu.com/lemma-php/dispose/view.php/202855.htmversus our versionhttp://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25E4%25B8%25AD%25E5%259B%25BD%25E5%2590%258C%25E7%259B%259F%25E4%25BC%259A. This occurs for the huge majority of articles (90,000). For context, these are articles which discuss Sun Yat-Sen. Our version at zh was much earlier, with last edits in January, while Baidu Baike, set up in April has only made minor excisions and modifications. It is clear that the contributors to the Wikipedia article hold the copyright.
I think we should give up any hope of negotiating with the PRC entirely, as they obviously have taken a hostile and insulting stance to us by lifting material wholesale, then saying it is their copyright. This is such a gross violation of Wikipedia's philosophy, and PRC being a member of the World Trade Organisation (with compulsory ratification of the WIPO), some form of action *must* be taken. I do not think this is a time for lega pacifism.
If we could initiate any attempts I think the whole community will cheer on. The right to sue is clearly there, perhaps the tediousness is in collecting copyright holders, but then again I think we can make a point of this case. The PRC is required to comply, because such a gross violation can mean PRC's expulsion from the WTO. If anything I think we should treat Baidu Baike as an enemy, and drop any pretenses or hopes that the PRC will ever willingly unblock zh.
Natalinasmpf
On 29/05/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
Call me cynical and all, but if you want to find a ripe legal target, perhaps picking one that won't have its legal bills paid by a *country* would be a good start. (Let's leave aside the interesting legal question of whether or not the Foundation has legal standing to sue.)
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
You are not thinking like a lawyer. A defendant with a fat pocketbook is always worth considering.
Fred
On May 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 29/05/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
Call me cynical and all, but if you want to find a ripe legal target, perhaps picking one that won't have its legal bills paid by a *country* would be a good start. (Let's leave aside the interesting legal question of whether or not the Foundation has legal standing to sue.)
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice??!?!?!?! It should say that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT
Why didn't anyone tell me??? I have been putting that on my professional résumé ever since my one year anniversary as a Wikipedian!
Mark
On 29/05/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/05/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
Call me cynical and all, but if you want to find a ripe legal target, perhaps picking one that won't have its legal bills paid by a *country* would be a good start. (Let's leave aside the interesting legal question of whether or not the Foundation has legal standing to sue.)
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Andrew Gray wrote:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
This could be the case if the PRC were to put all its muscle behind it, but it's not necessarily so. Their encyclopedia is apparently a small part of this Internet company, which is a small part of something bigger, in several steps. We don't mind their making their own encyclopedia, only the GFDL violation. Perhaps this violation was just a mistake by some middle manager, and not this decade's strategic policy of the whole communist party.
Make a map of their power hierarchy and figure out whose decision we're fighting, and how we can turn that person's boss into our friend. Make it easy for them to prune this dead branch from their organization tree. This may involve their NASDAQ status, their U.S. trading partners, etc.
What does Baide Baiku write about copyright, WIPO and such things? Do they explain concepts like licensing and copyright violations?
I don't think it would be wise for the foundation to take any action that would not be correctly backed up by a chinese law firm explaining us what we can do, and what we cannot do. As much from a legal point of view, than from a PR or a political one.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Le 31 mai 06 à 20:15, Lars Aronsson a écrit :
Andrew Gray wrote:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
This could be the case if the PRC were to put all its muscle behind it, but it's not necessarily so. Their encyclopedia is apparently a small part of this Internet company, which is a small part of something bigger, in several steps. We don't mind their making their own encyclopedia, only the GFDL violation. Perhaps this violation was just a mistake by some middle manager, and not this decade's strategic policy of the whole communist party.
Make a map of their power hierarchy and figure out whose decision we're fighting, and how we can turn that person's boss into our friend. Make it easy for them to prune this dead branch from their organization tree. This may involve their NASDAQ status, their U.S. trading partners, etc.
What does Baide Baiku write about copyright, WIPO and such things? Do they explain concepts like licensing and copyright violations?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 31/05/06, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it would be wise for the foundation to take any action that would not be correctly backed up by a chinese law firm explaining us what we can do, and what we cannot do. As much from a legal point of view, than from a PR or a political one.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Le 31 mai 06 à 20:15, Lars Aronsson a écrit :
Andrew Gray wrote:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
This could be the case if the PRC were to put all its muscle behind it, but it's not necessarily so. Their encyclopedia is apparently a small part of this Internet company, which is a small part of something bigger, in several steps. We don't mind their making their own encyclopedia, only the GFDL violation. Perhaps this violation was just a mistake by some middle manager, and not this decade's strategic policy of the whole communist party.
Make a map of their power hierarchy and figure out whose decision we're fighting, and how we can turn that person's boss into our friend. Make it easy for them to prune this dead branch from their organization tree. This may involve their NASDAQ status, their U.S. trading partners, etc.
What does Baide Baiku write about copyright, WIPO and such things? Do they explain concepts like licensing and copyright violations?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________
Something at least needs to be done, turning a blind eye to it will only make things worse.
-Selina
On 6/3/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/05/06, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it would be wise for the foundation to take any action that would not be correctly backed up by a chinese law firm explaining us what we can do, and what we cannot do. As much from a legal point of view, than from a PR or a political one.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Something at least needs to be done, turning a blind eye to it will only make things worse.
-Selina
There are thousands of people whose copyrights are allegedly being infringed. Any one of you is free to hire a lawyer and start a lawsuit. In fact, you're perfectly free to get together and talk about how you can effectively combine resources to do so. It'd be fine with me if someone sets up a mailing list or website and then sends a message here redirecting anyone interested to it.
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this. The only thing I see them doing *really* harmful is that they're censoring content, and this is perfectly legal under the terms of the GFDL anyway (I suppose Wikipedia could add an invariant section ranting about Chinese censorship, but it's not going to happen).
Anthony
2006/6/3, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org:
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this. The only thing I see them doing *really* harmful is that they're censoring content, and this is perfectly legal under the terms of the GFDL anyway (I suppose Wikipedia could add an invariant section ranting about Chinese censorship, but it's not going to happen).
I see that somewhat different - if Baidu would be convinced to adhere to the GNU/FDL, anything changed on their site could also be back-imported into the Chinese Wikipedia. If this is going to be a big thing that might be a big plus for us as well.
On 6/3/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/6/3, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org:
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this. The only thing I see them doing *really* harmful is that they're censoring content, and this is perfectly legal under the terms of the GFDL anyway (I suppose Wikipedia could add an invariant section ranting about Chinese censorship, but it's not going to happen).
I see that somewhat different - if Baidu would be convinced to adhere to the GNU/FDL, anything changed on their site could also be back-imported into the Chinese Wikipedia. If this is going to be a big thing that might be a big plus for us as well.
Well, I don't see incorporating Baidu's changes into Wikipedia to be a good thing. It would be impossible to automate because so many of their changes are negative, and if you're going to import the changes manually you might as well change the wording while you're at it and avoid any copyright problems. (Also there's the fact that Wikipedia would have to start complying with the GFDL, but let's ignore that one.) And in any case it is a hypothetical - we could always wait until Baidu actually *does* add useful content and *then* decide whether to sue them.
Besides, the way I see it backporting could be done anyway. Or do you think Baidu is going to sue the Wikimedia Foundation?
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/3/06, Selina . wikipediareview@gmail.com wrote:
On 31/05/06, Jean-Baptiste Soufron jbsoufron@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it would be wise for the foundation to take any action that would not be correctly backed up by a chinese law firm explaining us what we can do, and what we cannot do. As much from a legal point of view, than from a PR or a political one.
Jean-Baptiste Soufron
Something at least needs to be done, turning a blind eye to it will only make things worse.
-Selina
There are thousands of people whose copyrights are allegedly being infringed. Any one of you is free to hire a lawyer and start a lawsuit. In fact, you're perfectly free to get together and talk about how you can effectively combine resources to do so. It'd be fine with me if someone sets up a mailing list or website and then sends a message here redirecting anyone interested to it.
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this. The only thing I see them doing *really* harmful is that they're censoring content, and this is perfectly legal under the terms of the GFDL anyway (I suppose Wikipedia could add an invariant section ranting about Chinese censorship, but it's not going to happen).
Anthony
Hoi, Please tell me how you arrive at your conclusion. What do you consider the costs, how did you quantify them. What are the expected benefits, are they economical, political or of another nature, how did you quantify them. How did you compare the one with the other and again how did you come to this conclusion..
PS Did you consider the long term costs of doing nothing ? Thanks, GerardM
On 6/3/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this. The only thing I see them doing *really* harmful is that they're censoring content, and this is perfectly legal under the terms of the GFDL anyway (I suppose Wikipedia could add an invariant section ranting about Chinese censorship, but it's not going to happen).
Anthony
Hoi, Please tell me how you arrive at your conclusion. What do you consider the costs, how did you quantify them.
The costs are mostly legal fees or the time spent by volunteers giving legal advice (which could be used elsewhere). Just to quantify them more exactly would require enough cost to me that it isn't worth it.
If you've know a lawyer willing to give an estimate as to how much it'd cost to successfully win a copyright infringement lawsuit against Baidu, I for one would love to hear it.
Hell, if you're one of those thousands of people whose copyright is being infringed, you're free to enter into a lawsuit yourself.
What are the expected benefits, are they economical, political or of another nature, how did you quantify them.
As I've said, I don't really see much of any benefit in suing Baidu. I suppose it'd be a test case for the GFDL. But if that's all you want there are plenty of other companies which would be a lot easier to sue.
The purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is to write and distribute free content, not to stop other people from distributing mostly free content with a copyright notice attached to it.
How did you compare the one with the other and again how did you come to this conclusion..
Something > 0.
PS Did you consider the long term costs of doing nothing ?
I can't think of any.
Thanks, GerardM
You're welcome, Anthony
Hoi, It is nice to see impressive terms used like "cost benefit analysis" only to find that there has been no such thing. It is also nice to know that we all can individually sue them bastards.
It is also nice to know that the WMF does not need to care when the Freedom is taken away from what used to be Free content. If anything it is easy to argue that the WMF in order to achieve its goals has to protect the Freedoms that are clearly written as being part of the aims of the Foundation. You might consider it "only" a test case. But you forget that by establishing jurisprudence it prevents people taking increasingly more liberties from the Freedom that the GFDL aims to protect. When this jurisprudence becomes anchored in the Chinese legal system it is only the country with the highest number of people.. apparantly that is not really relevant.
Please do not use big terms that have meaning next time.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/3/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/3/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this. The only thing I see them doing *really* harmful is that they're censoring content, and this is perfectly legal under the terms of the GFDL anyway (I suppose Wikipedia could add an invariant section ranting about Chinese censorship, but it's not going to happen).
Anthony
Hoi, Please tell me how you arrive at your conclusion. What do you consider the costs, how did you quantify them.
The costs are mostly legal fees or the time spent by volunteers giving legal advice (which could be used elsewhere). Just to quantify them more exactly would require enough cost to me that it isn't worth it.
If you've know a lawyer willing to give an estimate as to how much it'd cost to successfully win a copyright infringement lawsuit against Baidu, I for one would love to hear it.
Hell, if you're one of those thousands of people whose copyright is being infringed, you're free to enter into a lawsuit yourself.
What are the expected benefits, are they economical, political or of another nature, how did you quantify them.
As I've said, I don't really see much of any benefit in suing Baidu. I suppose it'd be a test case for the GFDL. But if that's all you want there are plenty of other companies which would be a lot easier to sue.
The purpose of the Wikimedia Foundation is to write and distribute free content, not to stop other people from distributing mostly free content with a copyright notice attached to it.
How did you compare the one with the other and again how did you come to this conclusion..
Something > 0.
PS Did you consider the long term costs of doing nothing ?
I can't think of any.
Thanks, GerardM
You're welcome, Anthony _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 6/3/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is nice to see impressive terms used like "cost benefit analysis" only to find that there has been no such thing.
Glad to please.
It is also nice to know that we all can individually sue them bastards.
Is that sarcastic?
It is also nice to know that the WMF does not need to care when the Freedom is taken away from what used to be Free content.
No such thing is happening.
If anything it is easy to argue that the WMF in order to achieve its goals has to protect the Freedoms that are clearly written as being part of the aims of the Foundation.
I wouldn't mind it if the Foundation sent troops into China to free anyone jailed for distributing Wikipedia. But I doubt it's going to happen.
You might consider it "only" a test case. But you forget that by establishing jurisprudence it prevents people taking increasingly more liberties from the Freedom that the GFDL aims to protect.
The GFDL aims to protect the freedom to modify and distribute. *You* are the one recommending that we place a limit on that freedom, not me.
When this jurisprudence becomes anchored in the Chinese legal system it is only the country with the highest number of people.. apparantly that is not really relevant.
Sure it is. If China didn't have the highest number of people sending in troops to free anyone jailed for distributing Wikipedia might be a more reasonable option.
Please do not use big terms that have meaning next time.
OK. You too. Especially terms like "Freedom".
Thanks, GerardM
You're welcome, Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this.
I think some things less drastic and cheaper than suing can be done:
1. Officially but politely request that they take some simple, concrete steps that we outline. Perhaps they're simply confused by the GFDL (understandable), and would comply if we told them exactly what we'd like them to do. Having a Chinese speaker to help with this might be useful.
2. Failing that, somewhat more insistently note that this isn't an optional set of steps, and mildly threaten to embarrass them publicly if they don't comply.
3. Failing that, issue a short press release or open letter publicly noting that they're violating the GFDL, to both produce some public pressure on them to comply, and at the very least to warn people about the nature of the project.
The only things needed for this are someone who can write Chinese and Wikimedia Foundation approval to send an official letter.
-Mark
On 6/3/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
But I don't think it's worth the Wikimedia Foundation spending its time or money on, from a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, I think it's questionable whether or not it would be beneficial at all to sue Baidu over this.
I think some things less drastic and cheaper than suing can be done:
- Officially but politely request that they take some simple, concrete
steps that we outline. Perhaps they're simply confused by the GFDL (understandable), and would comply if we told them exactly what we'd like them to do. Having a Chinese speaker to help with this might be useful.
- Failing that, somewhat more insistently note that this isn't an
optional set of steps, and mildly threaten to embarrass them publicly if they don't comply.
- Failing that, issue a short press release or open letter publicly
noting that they're violating the GFDL, to both produce some public pressure on them to comply, and at the very least to warn people about the nature of the project.
The only things needed for this are someone who can write Chinese and Wikimedia Foundation approval to send an official letter.
-Mark
I think that's reasonable (at least, other than the "threaten to embarrass them" part).
You are missing one necessary bit, though. Someone needs to decide what "simple, concrete steps" they need to take. Adding a notice that the work is released under the GFDL is certainly one, and arguably the only important one. In any case, the letter probably shouldn't state "you're OK if you do *this*" but rather "you're not OK if you don't do *this*".
Anthony
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
I don't think it would be wise for the foundation to take any action that would not be correctly backed up by a chinese law firm explaining us what we can do, and what we cannot do. As much from a legal point of view, than from a PR or a political one.
If they are a NASDAQ listed company the US courts would have jurisdiction.
Ec
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
The key thing is that we can win, and that is why they are ripe, because the copyright violation is so blatant.
Otherwise, there'd be no point releasing Wikipedia under the GFDL; we might as well do it under the public domain. The key thing is to keep our material free.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SCO Estmort stated for the record:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
The key thing is that we can win, and that is why they are ripe, because the copyright violation is so blatant.
Otherwise, there'd be no point releasing Wikipedia under the GFDL; we might as well do it under the public domain. The key thing is to keep our material free.
Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they just ignored it? Who do we call to enforce the judgment? For some reason I doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded communiqués on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....
- -- Sean Barrett | "D'oh," said Pooh, trying to show sean@epoptic.com | his awareness of popular culture.
Assuming you could actually win a judgement against the government, they have substantial assets in the United States. Expect them to claim that they have nothing to do with Baide Baiku though. Baide Baikul likely has no assets in the US.
Fred
On May 29, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they just ignored it? Who do we call to enforce the judgment? For some reason I doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded communiqués on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....
Did you read this thread? Baidu is traded on NASDAQ.
On 29/05/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Assuming you could actually win a judgement against the government, they have substantial assets in the United States. Expect them to claim that they have nothing to do with Baide Baiku though. Baide Baikul likely has no assets in the US.
Fred
On May 29, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they just ignored it? Who do we call to enforce the judgment? For some reason I doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded communiqués on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
No, I did not read every post. But if that is so, I would say collecting might be possible. So if the case is slam dunk, if there are damages that can be calculated and collection is possible....
Fred
On May 29, 2006, at 10:42 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
Did you read this thread? Baidu is traded on NASDAQ.
On 29/05/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Assuming you could actually win a judgement against the government, they have substantial assets in the United States. Expect them to claim that they have nothing to do with Baide Baiku though. Baide Baikul likely has no assets in the US.
Fred
On May 29, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Supposing for the moment that we won the most crushing victory in the history of international jurisprudence ... what would we do if they just ignored it? Who do we call to enforce the judgment? For some reason I doubt that the State Department is going to send any sternly-worded communiqués on our behalf, to say nothing of the likelihood that Congress is going to impose any trade sanctions....
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, I did not read every post. But if that is so, I would say collecting might be possible. So if the case is slam dunk, if there are damages that can be calculated and collection is possible....
Calculating damages would be a problem since these are based on loss of revenue. Seeking statutory damages would be more practical, and one would then argue that each page which they copy is a separate violation.
The other thing to remember is that a copyright must be registered before one files a suit. There should be an active program to ensure that the copyrights on the database are regularly registered.
Ec
On 5/30/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Did you read this thread? Baidu is traded on NASDAQ.
To be more specific, [[American Depositary Receipt]]s of Baidu are traded on NASDAQ. Not sure how much of a difference that makes with regard to the current discussion, but there probably is one.
On 5/29/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
The key thing is that we can win, and that is why they are ripe, because the copyright violation is so blatant.
Otherwise, there'd be no point releasing Wikipedia under the GFDL; we might as well do it under the public domain. The key thing is to keep our material free.
Our material always will be free. A claim of copyright on a derivative work (which, by the way, is *REQUIRED* by the GFDL, see section 4e), "extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material."
Anthony
On 30/05/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
The key thing is that we can win, and that is why they are ripe, because the copyright violation is so blatant.
Okay, we've magically found someone with standing to sue and we've magically found the money for them to do it with. We (magically) win. What, exactly, do you envisage happening?
We then find out there is no way to collect the judgement.
Fred
On May 30, 2006, at 6:22 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 30/05/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even notice. We're not magically endowed crusaders for truth and justice; we're writers. Ripe targets are all well and good, but picking a fight we can win should come before picking a fight that sounds good.
The key thing is that we can win, and that is why they are ripe, because the copyright violation is so blatant.
Okay, we've magically found someone with standing to sue and we've magically found the money for them to do it with. We (magically) win. What, exactly, do you envisage happening?
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 5/29/06, SCO Estmort eudaimonic.leftist@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any way we can take action against Baidu Baike? Surely there is some legal means of recourse, because they apparently are taking things from the Chinese Wikipedia wholesale, with utter copyright violations. We have to deal with copyright issues, I don't see why we should idly stand by and let ourselves get trampled over with. Since we have been sending cease and desist notices to small mirrors now, surely this is the ripe target, as Baidu Baike is state-sponsored by the People's Republic of China.
Well, Baidu is its own company that's NASDAQ listed; it's not an arm of the PRC government. But there is no doubt the PRC government looks kindly on its own companies and wants to promote their well-being.
What you say is true, that Baidu is lifting content wholesale and integrating it into its own corpus without appropriate GFDL license requirements. The upside is that Baidupedia is generally regarded as a joke within the PRC and is not getting much traction (for now at least).
I think it is worth it to send them a letter to the effect that the GFDL requires such-and-such and that WMF would be happy to supply them a translation of the policy and provide help to implement the measures. Remind them first, rather than charge in with legal notices. And in the process, point out their own "Business Code of Conduct and Ethics" listed here which has a statement about respecting copyright: http://ir.baidu.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=188488&p=irol-govhighlights
I think we should give up any hope of negotiating with the PRC entirely, as they obviously have taken a hostile and insulting stance to us by lifting material wholesale, then saying it is their copyright.
That's easy to do, because we have never negotiated with the PRC per se, and there is no real avenue to do so.
This is such a gross violation of Wikipedia's philosophy, and PRC being a member of the World Trade Organisation (with compulsory ratification of the WIPO), some form of action *must* be taken. I do not think this is a time for lega pacifism.
I agree that after the appropriate gestures and made, in the end high profile PR about this issue may be a good thing. But if you want to see something that is more likely to get the attention of "big media" just make sure to highlight at the same time their incredibly "useful" MP3 search engine - http://mp3.baidu.com
If we could initiate any attempts I think the whole community will cheer on. The right to sue is clearly there, perhaps the tediousness is in collecting copyright holders, but then again I think we can make a point of this case. The PRC is required to comply, because such a gross violation can mean PRC's expulsion from the WTO. If anything I think we should treat Baidu Baike as an enemy, and drop any pretenses or hopes that the PRC will ever willingly unblock zh.
Natalinasmpf
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Tue, 30 May 2006, Andrew Lih wrote:
I think it is worth it to send them a letter to the effect that the GFDL requires such-and-such and that WMF would be happy to supply them a translation of the policy and provide help to implement the measures. Remind them first, rather than charge in with legal notices. And in the process, point out their own "Business Code of Conduct and Ethics" listed here which has a statement about respecting copyright: http://ir.baidu.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=188488&p=irol-govhighlights
This seems easy to do, and shows that some effort has been made to protect the copyright - an important step, I think.
Cheers, Andy!
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org