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."
the absurdity of the contemporary take on IP, and perhaps the idea behind is to demonstrate this.
To me, a language clearly is in the public domain.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
My initial reflex would be to say that you cannot own a language. Then again, however, what if you invented a language? What if I wrote a book claiming that I invented Elvish? Could whoever holds the copyright for Tolkien's work sue me?
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.
To me, language is just as intangable as thoughts, ideas, and concepts.
Perhaps it would fall under the guise of 'Trade Secret' rather than be copyrighted...
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Lots of nations standardize their own native language and regulate its use, so I don't see why a group of people cannot regulate the use of their own language.
Sorry, but that's the first thing that sprung to mind. If I were running MS and some "tribal elders" pitched a fit about us supporting their language, I'd say "Ok, have it your way. We'll see if your language stlll exists in another fifty years."
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This is not an isolated instance for Native American languages.
The Koasati (in Louisiana) regard their culture as entirely their own affair and are opposed to any investigation and especially publication about it on the part of outsiders. Formerly this attitude extended to the Koasati langauge itself, and interested enquirers seeking to learn it were instead taught Mobilian Trade Jargon (ref Geoffrey Kimball. "Koasati Grammar").
Randy Valentine in his grammar of Nishnaabemwin (basically = Ojibwe) reports that he removed morpheme-by-morpheme interlinear analyses at the request of his informants who wanted to prevent "data mining" of their language.
Shawnee elders apparently prefer their language die with them rather than cooperate on descriptive work with the People of the Knife.
I suspect the motivations for this vary: sometimes hatred of a cultural oppressor; sometimes a concept of language as part of one's intimate identity very unlike standard European notions. Most of the world's 6000-odd languages are spoken by very small communities.
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.
If the language was crafted for a purpose and the use of the language enforced (and use of other languages punished), you could probably get at least some desired effects.
Of course, if you're good enough and spend enough ressources, the "old languages" can be pretty much eradicated within about 3 generations.
*sigh*. To be a dictator...
At any rate, Banks was just doling out old soup in new cans; the concept is aging to say the least. (And I'm betting he was flogging a horse-skeleton, at that)
Bull. There are stupid things about my culture, and there's stupid things about your's, too. I'll criticize whatever I feel is wrong about other cultures. Feel free to do the same to me; there's a fair chance that I'll agree with whatever you mention.
Not a typewriter
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
They may not be dead, but none of the individuals who created C# own it; they transferred ownership of that language to a large tribe called Microsoft.
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 should be used, why is it unreasonable that the tribe that has hereditary rights to the Mapuzugun language should be able to dictate terms to Microsoft?
Either the fundimental principle of "owning" such intellectual constructs as languages has merit, or it doesn't, and Microsoft has become the most powerful company in the world solely based on our systematic presupposition that this principle does indeed have merit.
I don't think it has merit. I think this is a great example of the idiocy of the very idea. But if the Mapuche have good lawyers, it could be very interesting to see Microsofts lawyers sqirm about trying to defeat this case without making Microsoft looking stupid, hypocritical and antisocial.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Not quite.
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.
I guess we might me loosing the spiritual side of this story. These people might very well take as a sacrilege that fact that an "evil" company will profane their sacred language for an "evil" computer program. They're testing the legal way first.
Even if the language was copyrighted or patented, it would have expired already. The court should tell them to STFU.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
I beg to differ!
The first and best source for a lot of people to learn English around the world, is through English software. That happens to be a Microsoft product more often than not. From there, people start playing games, read web pages, or interact with other communication tools, usually in the same language as the operating system.
While I agree that this applies more to English than in many other cases, I still think that having a friend with an OS in a different language might intrigue me into learning that language, maybe even get started by using that computer.
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
Then, in that case, I'd also point out that the language of the tribe has been around long enough such that any and all copyrights on the language would have expired by now. As opposed to C# which is under 5 years old.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Likewise, no tribe, no people, no government has the right to dictate how a language should be used.
Why do you assume that this is what they're trying to do?
Let's do a hypothetical scenario: the Chilean government tomorrow passes a law that offers tax incentives to businesses that offer products in indigenous languages. Microsoft has something they claim is a Mapuzugun translation of their software, and they apply for the tax break. Who gets to decide whether in fact the product is in Mapuzugun? Or alternatively, what stops Microsoft from claiming a tax break on a Mapuzugun "translation" that no actual speaker can in fact use, because it is atrociously bad?
Clearly, one wants to be able to standardize the language to some degree in order to be able to evaluate these issues, and in general, to offer guidance to people who want to make such translations so they have something to shoot for. Now, who gets to decide what those standards should be?
In other words: I claim that the issue here is about who a word into what constitutes the Mapuzugun language for official purposes. This is of political importance because if the wrong people get to control those decisions, then people or businesses can claim to have offered "Mapuzugun" products or services that should in fact not be considered so.
Are you adequate?
I was personally involved in the preparation of a dictionary of an indigenous language in the United States. Our work was funded by a federal grant and we payed the elders for their time working with us. I believe there are now less than 10 speakers of the language. The elders really want us to get that dictionary done so that there will be some remnant of their language once it's gone. However, in order to work with them, we have to go through a tribal government committee. The committee routinely put up roadblocks to our work. Why? They would say that it had to do with protecting their control of their language, but really it had more to do with egos and using our project to further their personal agendas in some way. These people didn't seem to care at all about the language or its disappearance. Now we probably won't be able to complete the dictionary before the last of the elders are dead and nobody is left who can speak it fluently.
The language in question in this article is clearly more widely spoken, but still, I would not be surprised if this effort were a product of the same kind of self-serving short-sightedness.
In our case, people similarly thought we were going to make big bucks off their language. Apparently they are somewhat confused about the pay scale for academics in the humanities these days, especially grad students.
Even Microsoft is not likely to make much more (any more?) money off of their efforts to translate to this Chilean language. How many more sales will come as a result, people that buy this that would otherwise not have bought Windows at all?
If this group is likely to accomplish anything at all with this lawsuit, it's to tell the world that if you make an effort to support indigenous languages you are wasting your time at best and shooting yourself in the foot at worst. Thanks a lot, Indigenous Network.