2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:
> Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have Oh, and Ray is Canadian ;-p (I had people in the Slashdot thread assuming I was American despite the davidgerard.co.uk domain ...) - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
2009/7/11 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>: > >> Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have > > > Oh, and Ray is Canadian ;-p He should know better, then. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
2009/7/11 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> 2009/7/11 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>: > >> Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have >> that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans... >> This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has to do >> with being responsible about what you say. I am not a legal expert and >> I have no spoken to Derrick about his wishes, which is why I am being >> very careful about what I say and do. All I am asking is that other >> people in the same position show the same restraint. > > > The problem is that this is an issue that affects all of us, not just > Derrick - which is presumably (I haven't heard anything from him on > this issue other than the publication of the threat letter) why his > immediate response was to publish the letter. It affects our hobby, it affects his life. I think he interests take precedence. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ray Saintonge<[hidden email]> wrote: > [snip] > >> If in retrospect, publishing the letter is seen as a strategic mistake, >> it can't be unpublished. There are arguments available for it being a >> strategic positive. >> > One argument for it being a mistake is that the early disclosure has > diminished his supporters ability to shape the public debate. > Yes and no. Shaping public debate implies a certain degree of control over this shape. That does have a dark side if there is no prior understanding about where that public debate should be going. Wide publicity may help fundraising for legal costs if things ever get that far. > There are some relevant pieces of information that would influence > people's opinions, things like that the NPG previously complaining > about low resolution photographs and photographs taken by the > uploaders. (I haven't gone and tried to find examples from the latter > from the NPG, but UK museums have routinely tried to assert copyright > over photographs taken by commons contributors). > If they were previously complaining about low res photos, but are now offering them as some kind of offer in compromise, there is room there for positive movement. Others might see this as a sign of weakness in their position. It's up to WMF to accept or not. The question then becomes whether there is more to be gained from a satisfactory median resolution, or an all out victory that opens up the possibility of a loss. > The real interesting story here is that museums all over the over the > world believe that holding the physical good gives them unlimited > rights to regulate all uses of copies and even rights to regulate > discussions of those works, and that they are now beginning to partner > with commercial service providers seeking to monetize that control and > becoming litigious as a result. In the end the public's access to the > works shrinks, the public domain is eroded, and the lie is put to the > lofty claims of education, promotion, and preservation included in the > grant requests and mission statements of museums. Agreed, and it goes beyond just museums. Film makers, record producers, newspapers ... all are finding the economic models that sustained them before the internet age are collapsing. Kuhn said that a paradigm shift would have victims. If NPG wins it case that situation won't be changed by such a blip. We can probably agree that museums and other cultural institutions are valuable assets to a society, and we can probably agree that there are costs connected with maintaining those assets. It's also evident that the informational value of each artifact is unique, and the artifact is not multiplied to accommodate growing demand. Accepting low resolution images may be a stepping stone to greater co-operation in the future. Beyond that it becomes a need for cultural institutions to recognize that they need the volunteer sector or risk pricing themselves out of the market trying to meet the increasingly sophisticated demands of the online communities. They will still need funding, but that funding is not without limits. The funders live in a real world where there are many other funding demands. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]>: > >> I've restored the comments that I was replying to since you deleted them >> to wilfully mischaracterize my "ROTFL" as applying to the general issue >> rather than your silly comments. >> >> I've yet to see any evidence that you know what you are talking about. >> Your opposition to any kind of free speech on this by making up stories >> about potential harm prove this. Just because your contributions are >> entirely unproductive doesn't mean that this applies to what many others >> are saying. I may not agree with all of them, but I would not find that >> sufficient reason to suppress them. >> > > Would I be right in assuming that you are American? You certainly have > that religious view of free speech that is typical of Americans... > This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech, it has to do > with being responsible about what you say. I am not a legal expert and > I have no spoken to Derrick about his wishes, which is why I am being > very careful about what I say and do. All I am asking is that other > people in the same position show the same restraint. propaganda on some of these matters, though I can be equally critical of Americans in other areas, or, in the sense of [[John Ralston Saul]], I have learned to live with such complexities that are a part of the Canadian collective unconscious. Under the circumstances your misperception is understandable and forgivable. I have no complaint about your caution and restraint; I support that. There is ample reason to support the notion that Derrick's publication of that letter was unwise, but too, there are positive elements to that publication in that it opens up the conversation in much larger terms. The underlying issues inherent in NPG's attitudes have wider implications. It is unfortunate that they often cannot be resolved outside of a specific legal case against a specific individual. Nothing that you, I, other list members or the denizens of Slashdot can say will have a direct effect on NPG v. Derrick if that ever becomes a real legal case. Both sides will probably be advised by their own counsels to make no further public statements. Those in a position to speak on behalf of WMF are also wise to severely limit their comments. Before answering this I responded to comments by Gregory Maxwell, and the topics raised in that exchange by both sides.are probably the most constructive direction that this thread could take. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Consider the incentive system that you create when you combine a > copyright system which is effectively perpetual through retroactive > extensions plus the ability to copyright any work in the public domain > by making a slavish reproduction: > > New exciting viable business plans emerge, such as: > > 1) Obtain classic works of art and slavishly digitize them. > 2) Destroy the works of art > 3) Perpetual profit! > have to take additional steps to pull that off. In about 95 years (depending on the applicable copyright term), you'd need to slavishly copy the works of art a second time, into whatever the universal format of choice ends up being by then, and destroy the original copy lest it fall into the public domain. Also, ensure that all licenses to use that first copy expire at this time and require destruction of all outstanding versions. Then you can have everybody re-up for another round. --Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Michael Snow<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> Consider the incentive system that you create when you combine a >> copyright system which is effectively perpetual through retroactive >> extensions plus the ability to copyright any work in the public domain >> by making a slavish reproduction: >> >> New exciting viable business plans emerge, such as: >> >> 1) Obtain classic works of art and slavishly digitize them. >> 2) Destroy the works of art >> 3) Perpetual profit! >> > Come now, let's not exaggerate. The profit would not be perpetual. You'd > have to take additional steps to pull that off. In about 95 years > (depending on the applicable copyright term), you'd need to slavishly > copy the works of art a second time, into whatever the universal format > of choice ends up being by then, and destroy the original copy lest it > fall into the public domain. Also, ensure that all licenses to use that > first copy expire at this time and require destruction of all > outstanding versions. Then you can have everybody re-up for another round. Well, thats what DRMed file formats are for. But I always figured that that was the backup plan while retroactive copyright extension was the principle tool here (for example, the EU just recently retroactively extended copyright on music from 50 to 95 years; the US has done something like 3 retroactive extensions in the past). Another useful tool in this plan 'hosted content'— provide some flash based viewer and no one ends up with a local copy. These are backed up by anti-circumvention laws (fortunately the US law is gracious enough to not apply to protections applied on non-copyrighted works). There are also database rights. You may not own the works, but if you can assert control over aggregates it is unlikely that copies will be made that people in the future will be able to find. But even without DRMed files, hosted content, and database laws the regular pace of technology may well make the old digital copies inaccessible: I have storage media (10MB bernoulli box!) and files from the 80s that I can no longer read— so I can only imagine what a hundred years will bring. Not to mention social upheaval and simple errors causing the loss of data. It's also the case that if organizations come to depend on this income that they'll have an easy time of preserving it in the future, which is really the whole reason that retroactive copyright extensions happen. Offsetting the cost of digitization is completely reasonable, but selling away our descendants rights is not a fair payment. Copyright is a form of continual income, it doesn't stop when the cost of labor is defrayed. Fortunately the US doesn't allow you to 'capture' public domain works quite so easily, and yet there is no evidence for a lack of digitization here, so at least we have proof that it's not necessary for us to abandon the public domain in order to have digital copies. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |