Re-purposing Dalmatia, Amazon.com and dubious sources Options

[thekohser]

I have to say that this is one of the funniest things I've seen all month, related to free licenses.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

I guess this thread was FAIL?

[dogbiscuit]

I guess this thread was FAIL?

Nah, just didn't have enough drama!

Love the Amazon page - they really put effort in, didn't they?

But Greg - 2 stars? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[The Wales Hunter]

Does the same go for all of the books by the same primary author?

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1255456113/ref...Brewster&page=1

[The Wales Hunter]

To answer my own question, it looks possible.

Problem here - if Wikipedia/the WMF/whoever don't keep a track of these kind of books, does that mean an inaccurate Wikipedia article could become a book and the book could then become the source for the inaccuracy in the article? Etc, etc, etc.

[thekohser]

Does the same go for all of the books by the same primary author?

http://www.amazon.com/s/qid=1255456113/ref...Brewster&page=1

This was the most important review that I read:

This is from alphascript's own web page.

30.09.2009
In August 2009 Alphascript publishing was contacted by British daily newspaper The Guardian" - we publish here some parts of the interview:

Q: ...do all of Alphascript's books take their content from Wikipedia?
Alphascript: Yes, since we believe that the quality of the Wikipedia-articles is so good that it is worthwhile creating books with them. Wikipedia themselves give an impulse for this. The articles published on their sites are free in every respect and without any limitations as to further use. All authors participating in texts of Wikipedia know this or should at least know it.
The vice-versa procedure by now seems to have become "normal". For years Google has been scanning books and published them in internet. Of course there are also protests, but then the rights for the material concerned are still with the author or the publishing house.
There is no discussion regarding digitalization of books - mostly old ones - which are free of rights.

Q: If so, shouldn't this be made clear in the product description?
Alphascript: It is pointed out in every Alphascript book that contents are Wikipedia articles. Do we now have to write in Amazon-books: "Attention! Books contains Wikipedia!"?
Then other publishing houses would have to point out in their books: "Attention! Book contains nonsense!", or: "Attention! Book has only sex-scenario!"

Q: What do you intend to do about the customer complaints?
Alphascript: We are of the opinion: Of course you can have all these contents free of charge from Wikipedia, but there is a reason for having bought a book on a specific topic. Under certain circumstances you are more up-to-date with an Alphascript-book instead of buying a book of last year the contents of which are possibly not up-to-date any more.
We do live in rapidly passing times.

Q: It would be great to also find out a bit more about Alphascript itself: what you publish, who you're aiming it at...
Alphascript: We offer our readers a well-founded content, which up to the moment of publication as a book has continuously been updated and controlled. Alphascript publishing is internet in form of a book. There can hardly be a faster process. And this is what we are aiming for.

So, aren't they utterly in violation of the GFDL and/or CC-by-God(win), by claiming that the work is "authored" by:

Frederic P. Miller (Editor), Agnes F. Vandome (Editor), John McBrewster (Editor)

These three people are not the top five contributors to the content, as the GFDL used to require.

Seriously, where is Mike Godwin on this one?

Greg

[The Wales Hunter]

I'm currently trying to determine whether those three names are actual people or just aliases.

[Grep]

Problem here - if Wikipedia/the WMF/whoever don't keep a track of these kind of books, does that mean an inaccurate Wikipedia article could become a book and the book could then become the source for the inaccuracy in the article? Etc, etc, etc.

Yes. This is precisely why Wikipedia is a danger to the whole foundation of human knowledge.

[Milton Roe]

Problem here - if Wikipedia/the WMF/whoever don't keep a track of these kind of books, does that mean an inaccurate Wikipedia article could become a book and the book could then become the source for the inaccuracy in the article? Etc, etc, etc.

Yes. This is precisely why Wikipedia is a danger to the whole foundation of human knowledge.

It wouldn't be the first time that the popular version of history (whatever make the best story) BECOMES history. But WP is certainly in danger of doing this more pervasively than at any time before.

An old joke is that Russia is a country with an unstable past. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But horrid truth, Comrade, is that all countries have an unstable history, which is the story of the past and nearly all we know about, save for the occasional new documentary find and archeological evidence. History is constantly being reinterpreted through the fresh eyes of new generations of historians, but now we reach a world in which it is in danger of being reinterpreted though the fresh eyes of a generation of unwashed ignorant masses. And thus mythologized again, almost as in the days when history consisted of changable sagas instead of less mutable written records.

[thekohser]

I now discover that this was discussed, and flippantly dismissed by goth-giant David Gerard, on the Foundation-l mailing list, circa August 2009. It was also apparently a topic raised at the Village Pump on Wikipedia in June 2009.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

So, call me crazy, but I reported Alphascript Publishing to the GNU Foundation, to Amazon's legal department, and to the Federal Trade Commission. I also later notified Mike Godwin about how every Alphascript cover on the copied-from-Wikipedia books has a green sticker that says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" But, Mike was offended that I'd bring this to his attention. He said, "What the hell is wrong with you?" I guess he doesn't care when for-profit publishers shit on the Wikipedia trade name and deceptively use Amazon to repurpose Wikipedia content for profit.

Anyway, I got an e-mail reply from the "Dr. John McBrewster" whose e-mail was "legal@alphascript-publishing.com":

Last month we earned 2,3 billion US Dollars with Alphascript books, this month probably 8-10 billions. Next month > 100. If you are one of these poor U.S. citizens without health care insurance I can give you some $$ for your visit at the psychiatrist. Otherwise ask your President to send some military officers to my country on their way to Irak.

Wow. Alphascript this month will be making more than Comcast does. That's impressive!

Hey, wait. Amazon. Godwin. Jimbo. Wikia. Amazon invested $10 million in Wikia. Amazon is hosting Alphascript's deceptive content for profit. Hey, I think I see what might be going on here!

[carbuncle]

I now discover that this was discussed, and flippantly dismissed by goth-giant David Gerard, on the Foundation-l mailing list, circa August 2009. It was also apparently a topic raised at the Village Pump on Wikipedia in June 2009.

I'm sure I've seen this discussed before then , but perhaps not in reference to this particular publisher. Maybe it was in relation to eBay sales. My memory is hazy.

So, call me crazy, but I reported Alphascript Publishing to the GNU Foundation, to Amazon's legal department, and to the Federal Trade Commission. I also later notified Mike Godwin about how every Alphascript cover on the copied-from-Wikipedia books has a green sticker that says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" But, Mike was offended that I'd bring this to his attention. He said, "What the hell is wrong with you?" I guess he doesn't care when for-profit publishers shit on the Wikipedia trade name and deceptively use Amazon to repurpose Wikipedia content for profit.

Anyway, I got an e-mail reply from the "Dr. John McBrewster" whose e-mail was "legal@alphascript-publishing.com":

Last month we earned 2,3 billion US Dollars with Alphascript books, this month probably 8-10 billions. Next month > 100. If you are one of these poor U.S. citizens without health care insurance I can give you some $$ for your visit at the psychiatrist. Otherwise ask your President to send some military officers to my country on their way to Irak.

Wow. Alphascript this month will be making more than Comcast does. That's impressive!

Hey, wait. Amazon. Godwin. Jimbo. Wikia. Amazon invested $10 million in Wikia. Amazon is hosting Alphascript's deceptive content for profit. Hey, I think I see what might be going on here!

Aha! So Dr McBrewster must be one of the editors to avoid infringing the license. I am a little surprised that Dr McBrewster didn't offer you a share of the money if you would deposit a cheque in your bank account and wire him the rest.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Problem here - if Wikipedia/the WMF/whoever don't keep a track of these kind of books, does that mean an inaccurate Wikipedia article could become a book and the book could then become the source for the inaccuracy in the article? Etc, etc, etc.

Yes. This is precisely why Wikipedia is a danger to the whole foundation of human knowledge.

Well, any book that was recognized as being lifted from Wikipedia clearly wouldn't qualify as an RS. The devil's in the recognition, I'd say, though that doesn't seem to be a problem here.

[thekohser]

So, I decided to try an experiment, at the suggestion of young Geoffrey Plourde. Re-list the "books" at a price significantly less than Alphascript.

So, I posted "United Arab Emirates" for sale in "New" condition as an Amazon Seller, for $19.95, underneath the Alphascript price of $72.

Twenty-four hours later, I have a sale. To a gal in Alabama. Jimbo's from Alabama. Must be something in the water there that allows people to be duped by free-license scams.

Here was my Seller notice to the Buyer:

Dear Allison,

My name is Gregory Kohs. You purchased a "book" today from me about the United Arab Emirates. The original book was printed by Alphascript Publishing. It is of poor quality construction. It is comprised entirely of direct, printed copies of the following articles that are available for FREE on Wikipedia:

United Arab Emirates, History of the United Arab Emirates, Outline of the United Arab Emirates, Politics of the United Arab Emirates, Military of the United Arab Emirates, Crime in the United Arab Emirates, Human rights in the United Arab Emirates, LGBT rights in United Arab Emirates, Foreign relations of the United Arab Emirates, Geography of the United Arab Emirates, Emirates of the United Arab Emirates, List of cities in the United Arab Emirates, Demographics of the United Arab Emirates, Education in the United Arab Emirates, Healthcare in the United Arab Emirates, Islam in the United Arab Emirates, Roman Catholicism in the United Arab Emirates, Bahá'í Faith in the United Arab Emirates, Economy of the United Arab Emirates, Transportation in the United Arab Emirates, Developments in Dubai, Music of the United Arab Emirates, Culture of the United Arab Emirates, Cinema of the United Arab Emirates, Sport in the United Arab Emirates

When you purchased the book from me, were you aware that what you would be receiving is nothing more than a print-out of FREELY-LICENSED content that is available to you, right now, free of charge, at Wikipedia.org?

I suspect that you were NOT under this impression or realization, and half of the reason for me listing the book was to test and see if unsuspecting consumers were aware of this ripoff scam that Alphascript Publishing is foisting on unsuspecting Amazon customers. I have contacted Amazon's legal department, but have received no reply (yet) from them. I have also reported Alphascript Publishing to the Federal Trade Commission.

If you wish, please cancel your order with me, and please join me in registering a complaint with Amazon, that Amazon is doing its customers a disservice by not requiring more clear notification that all 5,000+ of these Alphascript Publishing "books" are nothing more than Wikipedia print-outs.

If you wish to still receive a stack of print-outs of these articles, I will be happy to provide them to you for the advertised price. Please let me know your wishes, and your reaction to this information I have provided you today.

Kindly,

Gregory Kohs

What do you all think? Any bets on whether she actually wants the print-outs?

[Eva Destruction]

What do you all think? Any bets on whether she actually wants the print-outs?

Stranger things have happened. I've occasonally bought print books that are freely available on Google Books; the convenience of a real, bound book over a pile of printout pages sometimes justifies the cost. If this weren't the case, nobody would print bibles, Shakespeare et al.

[thekohser]

What do you all think? Any bets on whether she actually wants the print-outs?

Stranger things have happened. I've occasonally bought print books that are freely available on Google Books; the convenience of a real, bound book over a pile of printout pages sometimes justifies the cost. If this weren't the case, nobody would print bibles, Shakespeare et al.

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

[Abd]

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

It lists him as an editor. I'm not thrilled by the marketing, which strikes me as misleading, but my guess is that there is no license violation here, at least if they have been careful. On the other hand, Kohs, seems to me that you may have violated the Amazon TOS.

The basic idea is sound. No comment on the price, but people will pay for those books. They may not get filthy rich, but they will make money if they do it right. Actually, it's a cool way to make a buck from being an editor.

[thekohser]

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

It lists him as an editor. I'm not thrilled by the marketing, which strikes me as misleading, but my guess is that there is no license violation here, at least if they have been careful. On the other hand, Kohs, seems to me that you may have violated the Amazon TOS.

The basic idea is sound. No comment on the price, but people will pay for those books. They may not get filthy rich, but they will make money if they do it right. Actually, it's a cool way to make a buck from being an editor.

It is deceptive marketing. And the preposition "by" is before John McBrewster (Editor). Not "edited by".

And it is a violation of Amazon terms of service:

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 copy isn't authorized if it hasn't met the terms of the CC license. The CC license terms include:

Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.

Has Alphascript made clear to others the license terms of the work? Absolutely not.

Read the Product Description here.

It includes the text: "Physics is the science of matter and its behaviour and motion. It is one of the oldest scientific disciplines, perhaps the oldest through its inclusion of astronomy."

Prior to publication of this "book" by Alphascript, Wikipedia stated: "Physics is one of the oldest academic disciplines, perhaps the oldest through its inclusion of astronomy."

So, even the Product Description on Amazon itself likely violates the terms of the Creative Commons license. It's unauthorized. Don't be an idiot, Abd.

[Abd]

Don't be an idiot, Abd.

Why not? Isn't it more fun? If not, why would anyone bother trying? Only idiots get to blither, and if you haven't blithered, you haven't lived.

Do you know what is in the books themselves about license? "by So-and-So (editor) means the same as Edited by So-and-So. And simply by selecting and putting the pages together, So-and-So did edit. Remember, anyone can edit. Wikipedia, at least!

What's the problem here? Somebody puts together compilations of Wikipedia articles and probably uses a book-on-demand service, so he makes money with every sale. This could be done well or it could be done poorly, like much of anything else.

I've seen no evidence that these are "unauthorized copies." Looks to me like the license allows these copies. The statement by the editor that there are no restrictions wasn't true, but, remember, that's a media reporter and the meaning of "no restrictions" may not be "no restrictions," it means "we can do this, the restrictions, such as they are, don't prevent us." And if he has fail to properly note what the license requires, that's an error, but what will come of it? And why do you care?

Myself, I like the idea. Anyone could do this. Like me or you. Why not? And, of course, I mean, do it right. A URL to history can be used to cover the requirements of the license, if I'm correct.

Where they are off, of course, is that they don't disclose that the book is a copy of Wikipedia articles. They are correct, probably, that they don't legally have to do this, in the Amazon advertising.

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

[The Wales Hunter]

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

A lot of the books on sale contain wiki mark-up that hasn't been removed. And the image on the front of the book about Georgia, the country, is of Georgia, the US state!