Worldbook Encyclopedia Censorship Topics

[Josh]

Some of the material in his Wikipedia is content that I wrote. He’s not paying me for it. Why should he be supported for what he did but not me?

I licenced it freely, but expected anyone who copied what I wrote to comply with the licence terms, which is to not prohibit someone else from copying it.

Perhaps the only fully legal recourse would be to simply ASK the user to respect the investment he has made.

It’s not legal to ask someone to violate a licence.

He isn't charging for the content, only for the filtration process. The content itself is still technically distributed freely. Essentially (as I understand it) his customers are paying for the EXCLUSION of content, not for that which is included. But I guess you could take it up with him directly, and see how he responds.

In my own business, I install a lot of free programs. I charge nothing at all for the content of the program, only for my time to do the installation. He is charging for his time in doing the filtration. A lawyer might see it differently - I am certainly not one, nor do I know the ins & outs of copyright law.

I guess my question for anyone in your position is whether the service he provides is of value - that is, do we want to encourage, or prevent such services.

What he is providing is a “derived work” which is clearly defined in the licence.

Basically, if he wants me to respect his licence, he should respect the licence I gave my work away to him with first. Is that not reasonable?

[Szdfan]

He isn't charging for the content, only for the filtration process. The content itself is still technically distributed freely. Essentially (as I understand it) his customers are paying for the EXCLUSION of content, not for that which is included. But I guess you could take it up with him directly, and see how he responds.

What is the filtration process other than deleting offending articles and links?

[Ken]

Some of the material in his Wikipedia is content that I wrote. He’s not paying me for it. Why should he be supported for what he did but not me?

I licenced it freely, but expected anyone who copied what I wrote to comply with the licence terms, which is to not prohibit someone else from copying it.



It’s not legal to ask someone to violate a licence.

He isn't charging for the content, only for the filtration process. The content itself is still technically distributed freely. Essentially (as I understand it) his customers are paying for the EXCLUSION of content, not for that which is included. But I guess you could take it up with him directly, and see how he responds.

In my own business, I install a lot of free programs. I charge nothing at all for the content of the program, only for my time to do the installation. He is charging for his time in doing the filtration. A lawyer might see it differently - I am certainly not one, nor do I know the ins & outs of copyright law.

I guess my question for anyone in your position is whether the service he provides is of value - that is, do we want to encourage, or prevent such services.

What he is providing is a “derived work” which is clearly defined in the licence.

Basically, if he wants me to respect his licence, he should respect the licence I gave my work away to him with first. Is that not reasonable?

This is semantics.

He isn't selling a "process". He is selling a finished work that is simply a slightly revised version of the open-source Wikipedia.

If I understand Josh correctly. He is free to do so under the Wikipedia license. But he gains no copyright rights over the revised product he created. Which means others are also free to copy and distribute it or label it as they see fit. Because it is not actually his work.

If changing someone else's work entitles you to rights over it then all the next person would have to do is change one single word of his version to claim it as their own.

In fact, the only actual NEW content he has created is the blank spaces where the words of others used to be. So he could claim as his own a couple of pages of black spaces that he created. But he can't claim any ownership over any of the words of others.

[Neto]

He isn't charging for the content, only for the filtration process. The content itself is still technically distributed freely. Essentially (as I understand it) his customers are paying for the EXCLUSION of content, not for that which is included. But I guess you could take it up with him directly, and see how he responds.

In my own business, I install a lot of free programs. I charge nothing at all for the content of the program, only for my time to do the installation. He is charging for his time in doing the filtration. A lawyer might see it differently - I am certainly not one, nor do I know the ins & outs of copyright law.

I guess my question for anyone in your position is whether the service he provides is of value - that is, do we want to encourage, or prevent such services.

What he is providing is a “derived work” which is clearly defined in the licence.

Basically, if he wants me to respect his licence, he should respect the licence I gave my work away to him with first. Is that not reasonable?

This is semantics.

He isn't selling a "process". He is selling a finished work that is simply a slightly revised version of the open-source Wikipedia.

If I understand Josh correctly. He is free to do so under the Wikipedia license. But he gains no copyright rights over the revised product he created. Which means others are also free to copy and distribute it or label it as they see fit. Because it is not actually his work.

If changing someone else's work entitles you to rights over it then all the next person would have to do is change one single word of his version to claim it as their own.

In fact, the only actual NEW content he has created is the blank spaces where the words of others used to be. So he could claim as his own a couple of pages of black spaces that he created. But he can't claim any ownership over any of the words of others.

He doesn't claim ownership over ANY of the words or thoughts reflected in the resulting material. What he is selling is the filtering process - his service work (and of course the external hard disk drive that it is on). But as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I cannot determine the legality of any of this. I just know that there are people who appreciate the work he has done to provide this resource, and are perfectly willing to both pay for that service, and to respect his request to not share it all freely. It really comes down to an exchange of payment for service performed. If he did all of this separately for each individual it would cost a great deal more for each customer.

Take my own business as an example. I create a standard locked-down version of Windows, using only tools and procedures that are already a part of the OS (or made possible by manipulating processes already native to the OS, such as Registry Editor hacks). I then create a working image of that preliminary work, and 'sell' locked-down systems that are basically 'cloned' from that initial image. I do re-sell the Windows OS license along with my product, the same as does every other system manufacturer, Dell, HP, etc. I also install a number of open-source programs on these systems, but the cost of the complete system is not in any way derived from any real or perceived value of those programs. (There are programs that I do not install on the image itself, but rather only upon individual request, simply because the respective license agreement, while allowing for free use, prohibits bundling it with any product which is being sold.) Even though the Windows OS license makes up part of the cost basis for the systems I sell, I am not selling the OS itself - all I am selling in that regard is my service time, an application of my personal expertise. Some key solutions I found on the internet, posted by people who are putting it up there to help people, to gain a following, or whatever happens to be their private motivation. I have also used youtube videos to learn how to deal with appliance repair work, etc. But I think that everyone has already decided on their opinion of the situation being discussed here, so I suspect that there is no point in continuing to respond. I think I've adequately explained my own understanding of the situation, and that was my only motive here; and, perhaps, to pose some probing questions, none of which have received any direct response.

[Josh]

The simple fact is, if he’s telling people not to copy it freely, he’s violating the licence that allows him to distribute or alter Wikipedia text in the first place and has no right to do so.

Windows and what you do is different. You aren’t altering the OS and redistributing it and you also are paying appropriate licence fees to Microsoft.

This is analogous to significantly altering the core Linux kernel and then charging to distribute it.

It doesn’t matter how much work or time he put into what he did. He doesn’t have the right to alter Wikipedia and then demand others not copy his alterations. It’s copyright material with a restrictive licence.

More importantly… if he doesn’t respect my licence to him for my work (which he undoubtedly has material in his Wikipedia that is my work and which is licenced under restrictive terms), why should anyone honour his requests?

[Matt]

Thanks for the replies. I am aware of the filtered wikipedia file. I guess I'm old school enough that I'd rather see my children sitting on a chair with a book instead of looking at a screen.

Maybe censorship wasn't the best word to use in an unqualified sense. I'm not too concerned about reading an article on evolution, we need be training our children on recognizing those things anyway. My main area of concern is primarily sexual content. My 8 year old doesn't need to being reading about transgender surgery advancements or the progression of LGBT rights.

I'm sure I'm a nerd but I recall spending many hours as a child with a set of encyclopedias and I assume at least some of my children will also use them for more than just to research a specific school assignment.

[Josh]

Thanks for the replies. I am aware of the filtered wikipedia file. I guess I'm old school enough that I'd rather see my children sitting on a chair with a book instead of looking at a screen.

Maybe censorship wasn't the best word to use in an unqualified sense. I'm not too concerned about reading an article on evolution, we need be training our children on recognizing those things anyway. My main area of concern is primarily sexual content. My 8 year old doesn't need to being reading about transgender surgery advancements or the progression of LGBT rights.

I'm sure I'm a nerd but I recall spending many hours as a child with a set of encyclopedias and I assume at least some of my children will also use them for more than just to research a specific school assignment.

Buy World Books at yard sales (or Britannicas, if you can find them). They’re old enough they won’t have much at all to say about recent culture war issues.

[Neto]

Thanks for the replies. I am aware of the filtered wikipedia file. I guess I'm old school enough that I'd rather see my children sitting on a chair with a book instead of looking at a screen.

Maybe censorship wasn't the best word to use in an unqualified sense. I'm not too concerned about reading an article on evolution, we need be training our children on recognizing those things anyway. My main area of concern is primarily sexual content. My 8 year old doesn't need to being reading about transgender surgery advancements or the progression of LGBT rights.

I'm sure I'm a nerd but I recall spending many hours as a child with a set of encyclopedias and I assume at least some of my children will also use them for more than just to research a specific school assignment.

I was the same. I would pull one off of the shelf to look up some certain thing, and then would start reading lots of other random articles I came across. My parents had the World book 1960 edition, a gardening set, as well as a children's science set. When I think about the financial investment they made.... (We lived in the country, with no library anywhere close around. I do not recall ever visiting any other library other than the school library, and that not until Jr High or HS. The grade school classrooms had a bookshelf with assorted books.)