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<[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to Baidu and press release "Baidu >> Baike copies content from Wikipedia without attribution" draft >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >> <[email protected]> >> Message-ID:<[email protected]> >> 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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ting Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
