Slashdot Mirror
Do You Own Your Native Language?
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."
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.
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.)