No. It's none of PG's business how other groups handle their transcribing. Tearing other people down doesn't get anything done. If people say they are doing semantic analysis, and decide to lock up, there's no point in us caring one way or the other; we may as well treat it as if it had never been done in the first place. If they are doing semantic analysis and are making it available to the world, why on Earth would we want be jerks and cop an attitude because other people doing semantic analysis are doing things we don't approve of?
I disagree. To me this is just another way to engage in copyfraud, just like all the dimestore editions which include an introductory chapter of "scholarly analysis" from Prof. Joe Schmoe and then slap a new copyright notice back on the "derivative" work. PG needs to make sure that what they publish represents "typesetting" and NOT "semantic analysis." PG should speak out strongly against all people and all communities which engage in copyfraud -- including much of the TEI "scholarly" community. PG should speak out strongly for returning copyright back to the sensible origins that the founding fathers intended -- namely to allow that an author could make a reasonable profit off his own efforts during his own lifetime -- and *not* the current Mickey Mouse copyright laws which are effectively allowing printing corporations to hold a monopoly in perpetuity. One of rights of the purchaser of a work -- at the time they made that purchase -- was the reasonable expectation that copy prohibitions on that purchased work would expire in a reasonable amount of time -- and not be subject to constantly increasing durations.