Slashdot Log In
Do You Own Your Native Language?
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Nov 23, 2006 04:41 PM
from the they-don't-like-power-point-presentations-either dept.
from the they-don't-like-power-point-presentations-either dept.
l2718 writes "In a new take on the reach of 'Intellectual Property,' the Mapuche Indians of Chile are accusing Microsoft of linguistic piracy. Their lawsuit alleges that Microsoft needed permission from the tribal elders before translating its software into Mapuzugun, a project which was co-ordinated with the Chilean Ministry of Education." From the CNN Money article: "The Mapuche took their case to a court in the southern city of Temuco earlier this month but a judge ruled it should be considered in Santiago. A judge in the capital is due to decide in the next two weeks whether Microsoft has a case to answer. 'If they rule against us we will go to the Supreme Court and if they rule against us there we will take our case to a court of human rights,' said Lautaro Loncon, a Mapuche activist and coordinator of the Indigenous Network, an umbrella group for several ethnic groups in Chile."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Time to call my patent lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Time to call my patent lawyer (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Time to call my patent lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
-- Henry Higgens
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a film with Kristin Scott-Thomas isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should just boycott it by not reading the version that's translated for them to understand. Or MS could just bitchslap them back by "mis"translating the yes/no text on the "really format harddrive that's now 90% full?" dialog box.
Just cuz MS is greedy, doesn't make other peoples greed any less um... greedy...
Profit from language? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, though, if this is a small tribe and they only teach the language to other tribe members, and Microsoft intends to make a profit off using this language, then maybe it is some sort of "human rights" issue.
Re:Profit from language? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm usually quick to join any group bashing of Microsoft, but this one strikes me as more than a bit stupid. By making their software available in more languages, Microsoft is performing a service. They can choose not to buy it if they don't want it. It's not like native speakers of other languages will be lining up to purchase Office in some obscure language like this.
LK
Parent
Re:Profit from language? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Profit from language? (Score:4, Insightful)
LK
Parent
Re:Profit from language? (Score:5, Interesting)
The government (or, more specifically, the 'Office Québécois de la Langue Française') used to require that a french version was available for non-entertainment software (the case that broke this law was when Windows 98 was delayed a few weeks because the French version wasn't ready at the same time as the English one was).
More recently, though, they have required that all software that did not come with a French version include a French-language instruction manual. This includes console games, and for the longest time, stores received hundreds of copies black-and-white shoddily translated game manuals for consoles, at game launch (not included in the boxes). Made it a huge pain to track all of them and to hand them out to customers.
Game companies have figured it out, though, and now most include bilingual manuals in-box.
Incidentally, the term "language police" is quite offensive to francophones such as myself, as well as anyone who has realized that French in Quebec actually was very well in danger of being wiped off by the deluge of English signs and companies up until the Quiet Revolution, and even, to a lesser extent, since then. There used to be a time where you could not be served in French in any businesses in Montreal, nor were there any French-language signage. I dare say that if it weren't for the "language police", it probably still would be the case.
While some of their tactics are quite heavy-handed, most of their actions are in fact very reasonable and help make Quebec a great place to live, in both official languages.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Profit from language? (Score:4, Funny)
I am right, if you ignore all the inconvenient facts that make me wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, according to Microsoft's director of intellectual property Michele Herman, Microsoft requires that you enter into what some have called "A reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with Microsoft" if you wish to implement anything using that language.
So, if it is reasonable for Microsoft to dictate terms under which the C# language shoul
Re:Profit from language? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Profit from language? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This appears to be the equivalent of Microsoft joining forces with the US Bureau of Indian Affairs to attempt to assimilate the Navaho by messing with their language. The Navaho Nation would not approve. It seems the Mapuche do not approve, either.
The Mapuche (People of the Land) Nation successfully resisted incursions by the Incas and then the Spanish for well over 500 years, and whether they have finally been subjugated by the current governments of Chile and Argentina remains an open question. At the m
Re:Profit from language? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Profit from language? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Microsoft has wronged anyone by supporting more languages. I don't think it makes any sense to object to Microsoft making money on a translated product. They shouldn't be expected to support the language for free, as in no charge for the software, so the alternative is to not support it at all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Profit is the word. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that even the article summary states that the work was done in conjunction with the Chilean Ministry of Education, I think you'll find that "support for all local languages" was simply a checkbox requirement the Chilean government placed on software. It doesn't matter if no one ever uses the Mapuzugun-language version: being able to check
Re:Profit from language? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
JHjhKH kh KH! (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory /. Jokes (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, the Language Manag'hwhabwa's YOU!
Language name incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
OH! YOU ARE SO SUED! (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly they got it wrong to avoid being dragged into court. You, on the other hand, have opened yourself to a lawsuit!
Parent
Human rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can Jim Henson.... (Score:5, Funny)
Bork bork bork!
This shows ... (Score:4, Interesting)
To me, a language clearly is in the public domain.
CC.
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
And what about accents? If I start using an accent on a show, and it begins to be associated with me. Then, someone else uses it. Can I sue them?
I am not sure, but I think that the answer is this:
A language is a way for people to communicate. That is, it is a system known to both of them, using which they can send each other messages. One can patent such a system to prevent others from using it. I am not sure, but I do not think that the tribe patented their language. Therefore, I doubt that they have any grounds on which to sue.
The iffy area, of course, is when does one have to pay royalties? If I create a language, patent it and teach it to you, and then, you teach it to your friend, do you or he have to pay me royalties? Here, I am not sure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For defamation and/or passing-off, probably. But claiming that Tolkien invented Sindarin and then writing and publishing your own Sindarin dictionary probably won't get you in trouble. As I understand it, a language is a "system" of communication, and "systems" are ineligible for copyright under United States law and the laws of other countries that have more-or-less harmonized their copyrig
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
A language is a way for people to communicate. That is, it is a system known to both of them, using which they can send each other messages. One can patent such a system to prevent others from using it. I am not sure, but I do not think that the tribe patented their language. Therefore, I doubt that they have any grounds on which to sue.
As a linguist who works closely with native communities, let me try to offer some insight into this issue.
Copyright law was not designed with oral traditions in mind. Therefore, a lot of previously unwritten languages face strange legal problems. For example, a person records elders telling a traditional story and publishes them as recordings or a transcribed text. The person who did the publishing has the copyright for those recordings, not the original storyteller. Thus, if the storyteller performs that same story in public, he is violating the law. Central texts of a society's religion are now the intellectual property of an outsider. There has been some work to fix this issue, but things are not perfect yet.
Concrete example (with all distinguishing features withheld for obvious reasons): The last knowledgeable elder of a tribe died. A linguist who could not get a job in academia has many hours of recordings of this elder, but won't release them to the tribe, unless they pay him lots and lots of money. The tribe is trying to recover its religious stories, fables, tribal history, and revitalize its language, but it is all held hostage by one man who is not affiliated with the tribe in any way. The tribe's position is that they should have some rights to the material, since it has been in the tribe forever. But the law says the material belongs to the man who made the recordings. (Oh, and the tribe is reluctant to take it to court until all other options are exhausted, because they are afraid of possible precedents.)
Also, many native religions have a different relationship between people and language. In the Judeo-Christian approach, we speak a variety of languages because we angered God and he confounded our languages, losing the original one He gave us. Now, most people here regard Babel as a metaphor; but it is a metaphor that has shaped the way we view language--as something not inherently sacred. Lots of tribes still speak the language their God gave them (from their perspective), which makes it a religious artifact. For a company like Microsoft to come in and use their language without permissions would be an intrusion on their religious rights.
What many tribes are doing, then, is asserting intellectual property over everything related to their language (stories, words, grammar, etc.) in the hopes that they can exert some control over the outsiders who want to come in and take advantage of them. (And many times an outsider's best intentions are actually harmful to the native community, we just don't understand all the issues.)
Parent
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Concrete example (with all distinguishing features withheld for obvious reasons): The last knowledgeable elder of a tribe died. A linguist who could not get a job in academia has many hours of recordings of this elder, but won't release them to the tribe, unless they pay him lots and lots of money. The tribe is trying to recover its religious stories, fables, tribal history, and revitalize its language, but it is all held hostage by one man who is not affiliated with the tribe in any way. The tribe's position is that they should have some rights to the material, since it has been in the tribe forever. But the law says the material belongs to the man who made the recordings. (Oh, and the tribe is reluctant to take it to court until all other options are exhausted, because they are afraid of possible precedents.)
I hope that some details were changed there, or this is pretty doggone clear. That man is under NO obligation to provide them with a record of their knowledge unless he has directly committed himself to such a thing, by mouth or writing. It was the tribe to remember that knowledge. They failed. They are now trying to blame their failure on an outside source simply because that outside source could help them recover from their failure.
Is he morally and ethically wrong to withhold that information from them? Heck yeah! Is it perfectly legal? Absolutely. Even if it the law said that he was NOT the copyright holder (as it now says) he would still be under NO obligation to help them relearn their stories. He merely couldn't profit from them without their consent. He could, however, profit from the tapes they are stored on and his services in recording and playing them back.
Parent
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The original idea behind the Law and the Legal System is to formalize the moral and ethical beliefs of the society in which they operate, and remove ambiguities to assist in the resolution of disputes. Ergo, if something is morally and ethically wrong, then it should be against the law. That something is legal, but would be regarded by "the society" and immoral and unethical, then the law is wrong and should be changed.
Most of the legal issues we see today is because the letter of the law has become more powerful than the spirit of the law (or the intended spirit of the law). ie: the law is now pre-scriptive rather than de-scriptive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Adultery? I think there are things that most people would consider morally and ethically wrong, but that aren't the state's (or the people's) concern.
To whomever owns the copyright to this language (Score:5, Funny)
translations .... (Score:4, Funny)
"lets just be friends" translates to "jump off a cliff and commit suicide"
"I seek a man who is kind with a big heart" translates to "I seek a man who is rich with a big wallet"
"can we talk" translates to "you're in deep shit and you're gonna get it"
"this is cute" translates to "give me the dough, now!"
"we feel..." translates to "I'm gonna make you feel..."
"marrage" translates to "on a tight leash"
Parent
What does language really fall under? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it would fall under the guise of 'Trade Secret' rather than be copyrighted...
What a pack of ignorant savages. (Score:4, Interesting)
-jcr
Wow! This is just nuts! (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me see if I get this straight -- the Mapuche tribal leaders are making the claim that Microsoft needs their permission to use a language because, well, they say they own this language? OK... later on in the article, a Mapuche leader makes the claim that he's afraid that their language might become like Latin, i.e. spoken and read only in universities, but that the solution to the problem is to make Mapuche an official state-sponsored language, alongside Spanish. Pardon me, but that objective seems diametrically opposed with the current legal action against Microsoft. Preventing Microsoft from incorporating Mapuche into Windows does nothing but retard the usefulness of the language, or am I missing something? It certainly opens up a whole can of questions about a state's sponsoring a language, but only to a select group of people, with control held by a tiny group of non-state leaders. Where's the sense in that idea? Where's the logic? Are these guys simply smoking some kind of native herb that I've never heard of, because that's the only 'logic' I can see in this whole silly situation
I suspect that the tribal leaders have another agenda here, namely fleecing Microsoft out of a few bucks for the right to incorporate the Mapuche language into Windows. That idea I can understand, even if I don't support it. It will be interesting to see what the Chilean courts decide. On one hand, there's a cash-cow opportunity for them to make a ruling that will benefit a group of Chileans by thumbing their noses at one of the richest companies in the world. On the other hand, it sets a bad precedent for businesses, and I wouldn't even want to think about the lost economic opportunities a ruling for the Mapuche might have.
One thing's for sure -- remind me not to go to Chile with my camera. God forbid I should snap a photo and deprive these people of their right to control their cultural heritage or something. Hell; they they sound like the kind of people who might believe that I'm stealing their souls when I take a picture. I guess those beautiful llama photos will just have to wait till next year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me see if I get this straight -- the Mapuche tribal leaders are making the claim that Microsoft needs their permission to use a language because, well, they say they own this language?
I'm inclined to believe you haven't gotten it straight, because (a) the article is short in details, (b) it's a popular press article, and of course the popular press is well-known for not being extremely accurate.
Presumably we can believe the article that the Mapuche tribal leaders are suing Microsoft. What I'm n
I'd like more information (Score:5, Insightful)
On the surface, it may seem quite absurd. However in TFA, I couldn't find any specific mention of the motives behind the Mapuche council's objection. Note that Mapuche leaders do not necessarily represent the will of every member of the tribe. However if we assume that there is support from the general populace, my guess would be that:
1. The Mapuche and Andean people have a history of being lied to and manipulated by the Chilean government, usually in the interest of integrating them more within the European society and economy, often resulting in people being forcibly removed from their ancestral home territory so the land can be exploited for corporate gain. As a result there could be a general distrust for any type of corporation, especially those from the US. Mining and logging companies, for example, have been a major cause of displacement and environmental destruction, which has deeply affected the sentiments of native peoples toward capitalistic enterprise.
2. There is a fear of the bastardization of their language by Microsoft incorporating and "standardizing" it. It could be that many are satisfied using Spanish language software from Microsoft.
3. Remember that traditionally the native people of South America have a completely different world view from those of European descent. Society, religion, economy, technology are all perceived differently. It may be that the people actually don't want the opportunity of being exposed to this software in their native language. We may think it's "what's best for them," but really how can you or I decide that? The history of doing what we think is best for an indigenous culture of the Americas has been that of moving them into our world without really understanding that they may really want to keep their way of life, and "progress" as we often define it (e.g. technology) is really not beneficial from their perspective.
To many, this may seem arrogant, or a grab for money. Without hearing a proper explanation of the motives behind this resistance, I feel nothing can be concluded. I think it's important to realize that other cultures view the predominant society from a different perspective and may see further integration as a threat to their way of living.
What if Micro$oft hadn't included Mapudungun (Score:5, Interesting)
What if Micky$oft hadn't included Mapudungun as a language option?
What repercussions of anti-Mapudungun fudd would we be seeing? Would the story read, "Microsoft sued for racial profiling against the Mapuche?" Would we also see quotes from the Mapuche tribe saying, "Microsoft is nothing more than language bigots for not recognizing our people, and their language as part of the human race?"
Either way, I'm not surprised this story came about, and I won't be surprised if it happens again in the future. One way or another, I can't help but think this all boils down to...money.
Shane
The copyright expired. Case dismissed. (Score:3, Interesting)
In related news (Score:3, Funny)
She agreed that what was probably needed was a test case to clarify the matter. 'We would pick some arbitrary person, like a mother in Kalamazoo, who has been observed and recorded teaching her child an illegally copied version of our language. Then we will sue the hell out of her. Win or lose, that will encourage others to pay proper royalties to the UK, and ensure that further development of our language can be properly funded'.