|
From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study:
http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ http://svt.se/nyheter/fortsatt-fildelning-trots-skarpt-lag (Swedish news report) 61% of 15-25-year-olds in Sweden fileshare personally, and heavy sharers have gone up. Furthermore - industry copyright education campaigns create resentment, defiance and disrespect for the law in general. So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
2012/5/21 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
> From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study: > > http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ > http://svt.se/nyheter/fortsatt-fildelning-trots-skarpt-lag (Swedish news report) > > 61% of 15-25-year-olds in Sweden fileshare personally, and heavy > sharers have gone up. Furthermore - industry copyright education > campaigns create resentment, defiance and disrespect for the law in > general. > > So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, > or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. I find it unlikely you would find broad support for a 14-year term even among the users of Swedish-language Wikipedia. //Johan Jönsson -- http://johanjonsson.ne/wikipedia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study: > > http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ > http://svt.se/nyheter/fortsatt-fildelning-trots-skarpt-lag (Swedish news report) > > 61% of 15-25-year-olds in Sweden fileshare personally, and heavy > sharers have gone up. Furthermore - industry copyright education > campaigns create resentment, defiance and disrespect for the law in > general. > > So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, > or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. > The most pirated bit of content at the moment appears to be game of thrones so I'm not sure what 14 years has to do with anything. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
On 5/21/12 9:31 AM, geni wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard<[hidden email]> wrote: >> From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study: >> >> http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ >> http://svt.se/nyheter/fortsatt-fildelning-trots-skarpt-lag (Swedish news report) >> >> 61% of 15-25-year-olds in Sweden fileshare personally, and heavy >> sharers have gone up. Furthermore - industry copyright education >> campaigns create resentment, defiance and disrespect for the law in >> general. >> >> So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, >> or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. >> > The most pirated bit of content at the moment appears to be game of > thrones so I'm not sure what 14 years has to do with anything. > Thanks for sharing this David. It's as if hating copyright has become the new punk rock. I remember when the music industry created adverts in the 1980s that were anti-pirating in regards to cassette tapes. Without mix tapes I probably wouldn't know most of the music I love today. Then came mix CDs, then came Soulseek... Oi! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><< _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by geni
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: >> So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, >> or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. > > The most pirated bit of content at the moment appears to be game of > thrones so I'm not sure what 14 years has to do with anything. 0 years best, but I think some unauthorized sharing data could support a merely shorter term -- recent, popular titles are the most shared titles, but older titles constitute bulk of sharing, and presumably most in need of distributed curation. That was my takeway from http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1261/712 which admittedly only looks at some Hungarian filesharing networks. I'd be mildly surprised if similar didn't hold true worldwide. Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
FWIW, I'd like to see things being released more freely internationally,
irrespective of copyright. At present, I can either pirate the Colbert Report, or watch it through a proxy using a US netflix account which I pay for using a US bank account. It isn't shown anywhere in the UK. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 21 May 2012 16:35, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, > >> or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. > > > > The most pirated bit of content at the moment appears to be game of > > thrones so I'm not sure what 14 years has to do with anything. > > 0 years best, but I think some unauthorized sharing data could support > a merely shorter term -- recent, popular titles are the most shared > titles, but older titles constitute bulk of sharing, and presumably > most in need of distributed curation. That was my takeway from > http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1261/712 which > admittedly only looks at some Hungarian filesharing networks. I'd be > mildly surprised if similar didn't hold true worldwide. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Mike Linksvayer
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, >>> or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. I think it's about time. > 0 years best, but I think some unauthorized sharing data could support > a merely shorter term Mike - you mean you think all CC licenses should converge to CC0 immediately? We should figure out a reasonable term for the sort of rights that are currently covered by 'copyright' and embed that term into all free culture licenses. That includes all CC and FOSS licenses: all should explicitly term out before the ultralong default term. In practice that might mean automatically switching to CC0 at the end of the shorter term. I don't think the right term here is "0 years". It is also not "life + 70". Perhaps "7 + 7". SJ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't think the right term here is "0 years". It is also not "life > + 70". Perhaps "7 + 7". I suggested 14 as a likely figure because that figure is already in common currency - as it was the term in the UK (Statute of Anne) and in the US (Copyright Act of 1790). And then Sage Ross turned up the recent study suggesting a 15-year term would be the correct length to maximise artistic production (though I think the number is a bit conveniently close to 14 years and would like to see multiple competing studies that show their working): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436186 The Economist also ran an editorial pushing 14 years: http://www.economist.com/node/1547223 So, yeah, "14 year term" is the meme. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
14 years is a fine place to start. Are there any existing campaigns
pushing for it? S. On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> I don't think the right term here is "0 years". It is also not "life >> + 70". Perhaps "7 + 7". > > > I suggested 14 as a likely figure because that figure is already in > common currency - as it was the term in the UK (Statute of Anne) and > in the US (Copyright Act of 1790). > > And then Sage Ross turned up the recent study suggesting a 15-year > term would be the correct length to maximise artistic production > (though I think the number is a bit conveniently close to 14 years and > would like to see multiple competing studies that show their working): > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436186 > > The Economist also ran an editorial pushing 14 years: > > http://www.economist.com/node/1547223 > > So, yeah, "14 year term" is the meme. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Richard Symonds-3
What I really find upsetting is that PBS produces videos that cannot
be watched out side of the states, it really upsets me. Also in germany, it is just unbearable, these copyright trolls called "GEMA" take away all the fun of youtube. mike On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Richard Symonds <[hidden email]> wrote: > FWIW, I'd like to see things being released more freely internationally, > irrespective of copyright. At present, I can either pirate the Colbert > Report, or watch it through a proxy using a US netflix account which I pay > for using a US bank account. It isn't shown anywhere in the UK. > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > Disclaimer viewable at > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer > Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk > > > > On 21 May 2012 16:35, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, >> >> or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. >> > >> > The most pirated bit of content at the moment appears to be game of >> > thrones so I'm not sure what 14 years has to do with anything. >> >> 0 years best, but I think some unauthorized sharing data could support >> a merely shorter term -- recent, popular titles are the most shared >> titles, but older titles constitute bulk of sharing, and presumably >> most in need of distributed curation. That was my takeway from >> http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1261/712 which >> admittedly only looks at some Hungarian filesharing networks. I'd be >> mildly surprised if similar didn't hold true worldwide. >> >> Mike >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [hidden email] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-2
Lol, 14 years term. Good luck. That is a lost battle.
I think that the useful approach is to spread the word about free licenses, that allow to use content NOW. 2012/5/21 Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> > 14 years is a fine place to start. Are there any existing campaigns > pushing for it? S. > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: > > On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> I don't think the right term here is "0 years". It is also not "life > >> + 70". Perhaps "7 + 7". > > > > > > I suggested 14 as a likely figure because that figure is already in > > common currency - as it was the term in the UK (Statute of Anne) and > > in the US (Copyright Act of 1790). > > > > And then Sage Ross turned up the recent study suggesting a 15-year > > term would be the correct length to maximise artistic production > > (though I think the number is a bit conveniently close to 14 years and > > would like to see multiple competing studies that show their working): > > > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436186 > > > > The Economist also ran an editorial pushing 14 years: > > > > http://www.economist.com/node/1547223 > > > > So, yeah, "14 year term" is the meme. > > > > > > - d. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [hidden email] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > -- > Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 > 529 4266 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > -- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain) Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> | StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es> | WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> | WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com> | WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/> Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-2
On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 14 years is a fine place to start. Are there any existing campaigns > pushing for it? S. Now that I'm looking, I can't find any campaigns as such! I thought the Pirate Parties asked for 14 years, but I'm wrong: the Swedish party says five years,[1] the Uppsala Declaration[2] suggests local Pirate Parties can agree on a demanded term themselves. Creative Commons offers the Founders' Copyright, 14 years: https://creativecommons.org/%20projects/founderscopyright O'Reilly is offering works under 14 yearsa all rights reserved, thence CC-by: http://oreilly.com/pub/pr/1042 [1] http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english [2] http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/european_pirate_platform_2009 - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-2
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds
<[hidden email]> wrote: > FWIW, I'd like to see things being released more freely internationally, > irrespective of copyright. At present, I can either pirate the Colbert > Report, or watch it through a proxy using a US netflix account which I pay > for using a US bank account. It isn't shown anywhere in the UK. Sure, this is happening slowly without any help from intellectual freedom advocates. For example, the Hungarian paper I linked to earlier noted a compression of cinematic release dates in different geographies. There's a bit of an anticommons and plain old control freakery slowing the change, but given that copyright holders are leaving money on the table by not selling worldwide, it'll happen. The more interesting questions are like ones like "would Colbert Report exist with a much shorter (c) term and greater exceptions?", "... with no (c)?", ... "if answer to either is no, is the Colbert Report worth the reduced freedom and security and increased inequality required to enforce whatever (c) deemed necessary for it to exist?" On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]> wrote: >> 0 years best, but I think some unauthorized sharing data could support >> a merely shorter term > > Mike - you mean you think all CC licenses should converge to CC0 immediately? No, that wouldn't be effective. There are different answers for a) public policy b) opt-in commons, given (a) c) individual/organization choices, given (a) and (b) (Granted, not all arcs mapped in above graph!) Above, I'm talking about (a). I think copyleft is an important part of (b). Actually I think the pro-sharing regulatory goal of copyleft ought be an important part of (a) as well, but I think that's best understood as orthogonal to copyright. > We should figure out a reasonable term for the sort of rights that are > currently covered by 'copyright' and embed that term into all free > culture licenses. That includes all CC and FOSS licenses: all should > explicitly term out before the ultralong default term. In practice > that might mean automatically switching to CC0 at the end of the > shorter term. Maybe. I don't think the need is pressing, understanding that (a) and (b) can be considered separately and terming out complicates (b). Some http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006454.html > I don't think the right term here is "0 years". It is also not "life > + 70". Perhaps "7 + 7". This would be a huge improvement of course, but see below. I'm mildly curious about how you arrive at "perhaps 7+7", in the fullness of time, perhaps on your blog. :) On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: > I suggested 14 as a likely figure because that figure is already in > common currency - as it was the term in the UK (Statute of Anne) and > in the US (Copyright Act of 1790). > > And then Sage Ross turned up the recent study suggesting a 15-year > term would be the correct length to maximise artistic production > (though I think the number is a bit conveniently close to 14 years and > would like to see multiple competing studies that show their working): > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1436186 > > The Economist also ran an editorial pushing 14 years: > > http://www.economist.com/node/1547223 > > So, yeah, "14 year term" is the meme. Maximising artistic production is a terrible goal for policy. At the very least civil liberty, equality, and security need to be considered as well. If 15 years is indeed the correct length for maximising artistic production, the correct length, considering more important things, is much less. 14 years is indeed a meme and again would be a vast improvement. But given 14 years or any other shortening is totally infeasible in the near term, I'd prefer a bit more visionary advocacy that resets the debate, again putting artistic production at a far lower priority than freedom etc. Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by emijrp
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Lol, 14 years term. Good luck. That is a lost battle. > > I think that the useful approach is to spread the word about free licenses, > that allow to use content NOW. We need a shorter term *for free licenses*. Right now those licenses piggyback on an unreasonably long-term notion of "exclusive authorial control of reuse". People who support free knowledge and free licenses should be among the first to do away with that term. David Gerard writes: > the Swedish party says five years,[1] Nice catch, thanks. That looks like an even better place to start; it's already part of their national platform, and they'd likely join a suitable campaign. Perhaps 5+5 is better than 14 or 7+7 as the default recommendation. [the "+" referring to an opt-in extension -- requires an implementation method.] > Creative Commons offers the Founders' Copyright, 14 years: > https://creativecommons.org/%20projects/founderscopyright Campaign idea: ask CC to make an O'Reilly-like solution part of their recommended licenses; so that "no, use maximum copyright term" is an opt-in option instead. Unfortunately, Founders Copyright as currently laid out wasn't designed to make that possibility easy... > O'Reilly is offering works under 14 years (c), thence CC-by Campaign idea: set up a named class of license for friendly groups like O'Reilly that are committing to 14 years, which are defined by terming out in no more than 14 years to CC0 or equivalent PD declarations. SJ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We need a shorter term *for free licenses*. > Right now those licenses piggyback on an unreasonably long-term notion > of "exclusive authorial control of reuse". > People who support free knowledge and free licenses should be among > the first to do away with that term. Richard Stallman thinks five years (Swedish Pirate Party) is too short: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html - though he likes ten years: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html > Campaign idea: ask CC to make an O'Reilly-like solution part of their > recommended licenses; so that "no, use maximum copyright term" is an > opt-in option instead. Unfortunately, Founders Copyright as currently > laid out wasn't designed to make that possibility easy... > Campaign idea: set up a named class of license for friendly groups > like O'Reilly that are committing to 14 years, which are defined by > terming out in no more than 14 years to CC0 or equivalent PD > declarations. Founders' Copyright has no buy-in on Commons, which would have been a nice place to start. Offering yet another licence option strikes me as less than ideal ... But yeah. I'm now envisioning a Hollywood op-ed desperately trying to defend the notion of a whole fourteen years for copyright. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> 14 years is a fine place to start. Are there any existing campaigns >> pushing for it? S. > > > Now that I'm looking, I can't find any campaigns as such! > > I thought the Pirate Parties asked for 14 years, but I'm wrong: the > Swedish party says five years,[1] the Uppsala Declaration[2] suggests > local Pirate Parties can agree on a demanded term themselves. > > Creative Commons offers the Founders' Copyright, 14 years: > https://creativecommons.org/%20projects/founderscopyright > > O'Reilly is offering works under 14 yearsa all rights reserved, thence > CC-by: http://oreilly.com/pub/pr/1042 > > > [1] http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english > [2] http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/european_pirate_platform_2009 > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l The term of copyrights isn't even the only problem, though it probably is the biggest one. Another issue is the switchover from requested to automatic copyright. This means that even for works for which the author doesn't care at all about the copyright, you'd still have to either seek them out and ask permission, or take the chance. For orphaned works, that's a major problem, since the user of an orphan work may find someone coming out of the blue to sue him someday. For orphaned works whose authorship is unknown, that's an even more significant issue-if you don't know who wrote it, you don't even know when the "+70" starts, and so such works may remain unusable in copyright limbo for far longer than they are actually in copyright. If we're going to advocate for sane copyright law, I'd propose the following: -Copyright must be for a reasonable term. 14 years would be the outside maximum. It was pretty onerous to write, publish, and distribute a work in the Founders' day compared to ours, so I'd say we should probably have a shorter term, maybe 3+3 or 5+5. That would give us a rich public domain with a lot of content that's still relevant to the present day, while still allowing authors a reasonable exclusivity period. The vast majority of works by 10 years have either made money or never will, and we should write the law for normal cases, not edge cases. -To get the initial term of copyright, the author should be explicitly required to put a clear copyright notice on the work (or, when infeasible, otherwise clearly indicate that the content is copyrighted and when the copyright began). Saying "If you want it, you have to ask for it" is not exactly an onerous requirement. -To get the extended protection period, a nominal per-work fee should be charged. This would force large organizations, especially, to carefully consider whether it's worth keeping a given work in copyright for the extension period, or whether they'd rather have it fall into the public domain early. -Copyrights must be registered with the Library of Congress (or similar national organization) within 90 days of first publication of the copyrighted work. This process should be made as easily as possible (probably online), but even as such, would discourage people and organizations from indiscriminately slapping copyright on everything, since they then have to register and keep track of it. -No orphan works. If the author (or author's agent) cannot be contacted at any of the contacts listed with the LoC or national equivalent within 60 days of someone requesting permission trying to, the copyright is forfeited and the work goes immediately and irrevocably into the public domain. -Clarify that when a work is copyrighted, its move into the public domain is -fixed-, and that no future legislation can change the PD date of existing works. -Currently copyrighted work will gain protection for the maximum possible term under the new law (6 or 10 years) from passage date of the law, or the remainder of the existing copyright, whichever is -shorter-. Work that would have fallen into the public domain but for the passage of extension laws falls immediately to the public domain. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Mike Linksvayer
I like the cc-licenses list thread you linked, Mike; thank you. I
take it that thread didn't continue past December? I agree generally with the points Greg London was making there: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006472.html For me the central value in choosing a sane default may is unifying the message about what term is sensible. We need to focus on a single benchmark - without cutting off personal options for customization - to avoid shed-painting. On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer <[hidden email]> wrote: > Samuel Klein wrote: >> We should figure out a reasonable term for the sort of rights that are >> currently covered by 'copyright' and embed that term into all free >> culture licenses. That includes all CC and FOSS licenses: all should >> explicitly term out before the ultralong default term. > > Maybe. I don't think the need is pressing, understanding that (a) and > (b) can be considered separately and terming out complicates (b). Some > http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006454.html It sure seems pressing to me; we have a thriving free culture movement at the moment, recent (c) extensions are still in memory and so evidently ridiculous to the current generation, and we're not all distracted by trivia like world wars or plagues or armageddon. Why wait? Terming out should not complicate the opt-in commons. * Set a standard that all recommended licenses become PD in at most N years. * Define the PD-date of a derivative as the latest of its component sources. >> I don't think the right term here is "0 years". Perhaps "7 + 7". > > This would be a huge improvement of course, but see below... < > given 14 years or any other shortening is totally infeasible > in the near term, I'd prefer a bit more visionary advocacy > that resets the debate, again putting artistic production > at a far lower priority than freedom etc. I also agree with Todd Allen that 5+5 or 3+3 might make sense too. But we should pick a maximum in framing a campaign. I disagree with your premise about above - we can do more than 'advocate': we can change ourselves. CC is one of the most powerful forces for copyright-license change on the planet, particularly among the Internet residents who dominate production of creative works today. Wikimedia's license choice is copied by many others in the SA commons. I am talking about CC making sane the terms of the licenses it promotes most heavily around the world. And Wikimedia using those sanitized licenses for its projects. That is what we can do *right now* to fix the unreasonable terms of the licenses we all use - and encourage others to use - every day. If we agree that N = 70+L is not sane, and some N <= 14 is a sane maximum, we can spend more time discussing how to make it happen. Todd: I like many of your points; though I think the early success will be in changing the norms of the opt-in commons, and of sanity-friendly publishers, not changing national copyright laws. Sam. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
* David Gerard wrote:
>So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term, >or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however. You don't say who "we" are, but in case some people think the Wikimedia Foundation should position itself on "copyright" matters much beyond which licenses it is using and why, and which problems Wikipedia might be facing due to various aspects of "copyright", the likely result is, "This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move" especially if it comes as specific as the suggestion above. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Samuel Klein-2
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> David Gerard writes: > > O'Reilly is offering works under 14 years (c), thence CC-by > > Campaign idea: set up a named class of license for friendly groups > like O'Reilly that are committing to 14 years, which are defined by > terming out in no more than 14 years to CC0 or equivalent PD > declarations. I think we're unnecessarily conflating the question of whether authors should enjoy exclusive control of their work with the related but distinct question of whether authors should receive credit for their work. It's perfectly possible for people who are in perfect agreement on the first issue to disagree on the second; and I think that, in practical terms, legitimate reuse of cultural works (of the sort that is of interest to the Wikimedia movement) is unlikely to be stifled by an attribution requirement along the lines of CC-by or similar licenses. Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
|
In reply to this post by Bjoern Hoehrmann
2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann <[hidden email]>:
> You don't say who "we" are, but in case some people think the Wikimedia > Foundation should position itself on "copyright" matters much beyond > which licenses it is using and why, and which problems Wikipedia might > be facing due to various aspects of "copyright", the likely result is, > "This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as > a bad move" especially if it comes as specific as the suggestion above. Yes. Very much so. //Johan Jönsson -- http://johanjonsson.net/wikipedia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |
