Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
I have submitted the following to GNU.org It doesn't make sense to send something like this to a gnu.org mailing list. The GNU project does not accept copyrights in any official capacity--that work is done by the FSF. And, it's really only worth emailing them if people actually assigned copyright to the FSF of the work. Besides, people from the GNU project and friends of the FSF are on *this* mailing list already. -Josh ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
Is 19.95 your cost? I'ver mentioned before that this is the best way to effectively put them out of business. From: Gregory Kohs To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 10:10:32 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam I wonder what Alphascript will think of this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/6130037589 Americans love a good bargain. Too bad I don't have the time to duplicate this effort the 5,000 times to keep up with them. Greg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
I wonder what Alphascript will think of this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/6130037589 Americans love a good bargain. Too bad I don't have the time to duplicate this effort the 5,000 times to keep up with them. Greg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
I have submitted the following to GNU.org, to Amazon, to Alphascript Publishing, and the FTC, so maybe they can professionally sort it out. I may not have legal footing, but if not, it still stinks: Amazon.com is allowing the fraudulent marketing of published content by Alphascript Publishing. The materials in these books: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=John%20McBrewster ...was not authored "by" John McBrewster. It was authored and edited by several editors on Wikipedia.org who claim copyright to the material and released it under the terms of the GFDL and the CC-by-SA licenses. As you can see, Alphascript is making no attempt in its marketing to inform the buyer that the material is freely licensed, that it has merely been re-packaged (not "edited"), and that the listing of these ancillary editors does NOT fulfill the attribution terms on the free licenses which transport this media. I have multiple expectations: (1) That the GNU.org and the FTC will act to the best of their abilities to work with both Alphascript Publishing and Amazon to inform their course of action to help assure that proper attribution and sourcing does come into effect, or simply to advocate removal of these publications from the marketing database hosted by Amazon until they are made compliant. (2) That Amazon more effectively address its few publishers who are brazenly violating American licensing laws, even if they are offshore companies. We need go no further than Amazon's own terms of service to read: Intellectual Property * Recopied media. Recopied media infringe upon copyrights and trademarks and are illegal to sell. Unauthorized copies, dubs, and duplicates of any copyrighted material are prohibited on Amazon.com. This includes: o Books - Unauthorized copies of books are prohibited. The content published by Alphascript is authorized if and only if the terms of the original licenses have been met, and I assuredly believe they have not been so met. Gregory Kohs Cell: 302.463. CC: FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection (Case number: 24307600) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote: > Look, if the license is itself a feeble instrument that almost begs to > be mocked, then I guess the "caveat emptor" applies not only to the > stooges who might buy these books (is there any evidence that anyone > is actually purchasing them?), but also to the content generators who > release their work under licenses they (falsely) think will carry some > oomph in the marketplace. Yes, you shouldn't submit anything to Wikipedia that you're not comfortable basically releasing into the public domain. The GFDL offered little protection, CC-BY-SA offers even less, and the WMF's interpretation of CC-BY-SA offers basically no protection (the only entity that the WMF says has to be given credit is "Wikipedia", and they can't even sue if that credit isn't given, so basically you've got a catch-22 situation where the people who could potentially sue aren't the people who are harmed). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
Robert Rohde said: + At its core though, the fact that Wikipedia works can be repackaged and sold is a feature of the free content movement. + Via trickery? Some accomplishment. Andrew Gray says: = this may be a failing of Amazon = Amazon... Where have I heard that name? Oh, yes! They invested $10 million in Wikia, Inc., didn't they? Sorry to see that they don't help to respect the licenses that Wikipedia and Wikia are both built upon. Look, if the license is itself a feeble instrument that almost begs to be mocked, then I guess the "caveat emptor" applies not only to the stooges who might buy these books (is there any evidence that anyone is actually purchasing them?), but also to the content generators who release their work under licenses they (falsely) think will carry some oomph in the marketplace. I do agree with Mr. Gray that Amazon has made a poor corporate judgment in not demanding more straightforward attribution of its publishers. I guess Amazon makes a number of bad judgments. Their stock is up less than 9% over 10 years, with no paid dividends. Greg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing scam
What can Creative Commons or Wikimedia do in these cases? They aren't the rights holders, so even if they wanted to they couldn't sue. And if they could sue, they couldn't afford it. Legal remedies are available to the folks whose work is included, but I think generally speaking they may not have much motivation or means. Wikipedia content is reused all across the web and in print without the type of attribution required by the GFDL - this is nothing new. Nathan (Replying again on the thread with a subject.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
