[Foundation-l] Turn the things the other way around "Baidu Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution"

[Ting Chen]

This is definitively a wrong approach. Just because part of their 
content violate our license does not mean that ALL their content are 
under CC-SA-BY. No court will ever follow such a logic.

Greetings
Ting

On 25.04.2011 08:45, wrote Joan Goma:
> As Ray saids legal prosecution to claim for formal accomplishing of the
> copyright terms is expensive and difficult. But the same happens the other
> way around.
>
> I would like to have a clear legal opinion about applying the terms without
> going to court.
>
> They have copied articles from Chinese Wikipedia and translated articles
> from English and Japanese Wikipedia so in my opinion their work is a
> derivative one and according to the CCSA terms it is also CCSA no mater what
> they say.
>
> What about creating a bot to copy from Baidu all the articles not yet
> existing in Chinese wikipedia.
>
> Could Geoff Brigham provide us his legal advice?
>
>
>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:18:51 -0700
>> From: Ray Saintonge<saintonge at telus.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to Baidu and press release "Baidu
>>         Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution" draft
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>         <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Message-ID:<4DB4A1CB.308 at telus.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>> On 04/24/11 9:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> Baidu Baike clearly have a considerable potential liability in terms
>>> of violation of copyright, including under Chinese law (assuming CC
>>> by-sa holds up).
>>>
>>> If they're traded on the stock market in Hong Kong (or anywhere else)
>>> - have they filed appropriate notices with the relevant financial
>>> oversight bodies noting this outstanding potential liability? If not,
>>> why not, and could they be in danger of penalties for not having done
>>> so?
>> Reading through this thread only reveals how thoroughly fucked up
>> copyright law really is!  The Baidu situation does point to a prima
>> facie case of copyright infringement and blatant plagiarism, but we can
>> do no better than the inhabitants of Flatland after their world was
>> struck by a three-dimensional object. In theory the writers of
>> collaborative material have a right of action against the infringers, or
>> against those who violate the moral right of attribution. In practical
>> terms, if the owner can be identified the costs prosecuting violations
>> on the other side of the world are so far out of proportion to any
>> potential maximum penalty as to turn any such action into a fool's
>> errand, even in a class action. Nevertheless, when we apply the law to
>> ourselves it's with such exactitude that we put ourselves in an
>> immediate disadvantage.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


-- 
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/