Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Johan Jönsson  wrote:
> 2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann :
>
>> 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.

I agree.  What problems does Wikipedia face?  Some of the Wikipedia,
and other projects, allow non-free media where they are necessary to
support the goals of the project.  Some projects don't allow non-free
media, but most of our mission can be adequately achieved with plain
text, and should be obtained in pure text in order to meet the needs
of people with vision impairments that mean they can't see images.

A limit on copyright increases our pool of resources at some point in
the future (5 years, 14 years, etc) as no government will attempt to
push existing works into the public domain by having a retroactive new
copyright duration.

My bet is that our firm commitment to CC-BY-SA will mean that the
copyright landscape will be quite different in 14 years.

If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to
redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the
day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from
being enriched.  We could list all of the works which would be public
domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Mike Dupont]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin
 wrote:
> 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.

very good point, basically the bsd.
but look people, are you saying that wikipedia editors should limit
its own copyright to 14 years? how would that work practically?

Would it be possible to add clauses like that to to license? would
that be incompatible with cc-by-sa?



-- 
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 8, Issue 21 -- 21 May 2012

[Wikipedia Signpost]

>From the editor: New editor-in-chief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21/From_the_editor

News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling 
major issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21/News_and_notes

WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21/WikiProject_report

Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the 
week
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21/Featured_content

Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21/Arbitration_report

Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21/Technology_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-21


http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours about the new mobile site and other mobile work at the WMF

[Steven Walling]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Steven Walling wrote:

> We'll be in #wikimedia-office from 18:00-19:00 UTC, Friday the 23rd. As
> usual, docs are on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours
>

Excuse me, Friday is not the 23rd. It's the 25th!

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Office hours about the new mobile site and other mobile work at the WMF

[Steven Walling]

Hi everyone,

This Friday the Wikimedia Foundation's mobile team will be hosting an IRC
office hours to talk about the new version of the Wikipedia mobile site,
along with other upcoming updates to the way readers and contributors
experience the projects on mobile devices.

This is the first office hours with Phil Chang, the product manager for
mobile, since the Foundation has worked to release new versions of the
mobile site, iPhone app, and the Android app. If you're interested in those
projects and future work on mobile contributions, I highly encourage
attending. :)

We'll be in #wikimedia-office from 18:00-19:00 UTC, Friday the 23rd. As
usual, docs are on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

-- 
Steven Walling
https://wikimediafoundation.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Johan Jönsson]

2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann :

> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Kirill Lokshin]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Samuel Klein  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* 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:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Samuel Klein]

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  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
> more on this at
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Todd Allen]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein  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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[David Gerard]

On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, emijrp  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds
 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  wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer  
> 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
more on this at
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  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[David Gerard]

On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[emijrp]

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 

> 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  wrote:
> > On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein  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
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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  |
StatMediaWiki
| WikiEvidens  |
WikiPapers
| WikiTeam 
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Mike Dupont]

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
 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  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni  wrote:
>> > On 21 May 2012 13:09, 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.
>> >
>> > 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
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Samuel Klein]

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  wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein  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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 2 Community Fellow

[Florence Devouard]

Thank you Siko for answering.

That's a mix of "curiosity" (for the benefits, pensions and so on) and 
of "concern" (on the responsibility side of things).


Wikimedia France received several legal complaints in the past few years 
and the frequency is increasing. The inventivity and the boldness of 
lawyers is also getting stronger in trying to prove that the chapter is 
legally responsible for what happen on the French speaking Wikipedia. We 
also had to deal with a volunteer contributor who was taken to court for 
a very regular wiki activity (thank god, ended well). In short, we can 
not pretend there is no "legal" risk.


Aside from this, professionnally speaking, I am a freelancer. I pay 
roughly 1000 euros every year in various insurance to cover my activity. 
Covering any wrong recommandation I may give my clients. Covering any 
material disaster I might create in their office (such as leaking coffee 
on one of their laptop... or worse). Covering legal support for me in 
case I am brought to court.
If I did not pay for such insurance, I would be 100% responsible on my 
own revenue and property (my house and so on).
If I were on staff in a company, the company would cover this (to a 
certain extent of course).


So I am being curious about the status of the fellows. If they do 
anything illegal (voluntarily or not) and are taken to court... are they 
on their own ? (hopefully WMF would help them pay the fees). Or would it 
be WMF considered responsible as their "employer" ?


Florence



On 5/21/12 8:09 PM, Richard Symonds wrote:

I must admit to being curious, as do at least two others i've spoken to
about this. With no benefits and no pensions, and what seems like hazy
employment rights that vary from state to state (not to mention fellows
from overseas) and person to person, this does seem a little odd. How much
notice are they given, and what support they are entitled to from the WMF,
would be very helpful.

I'd  appreciate a more technical explanation so I can understand how the
WMF deals with people on these short term contracts. :-)

Richard Symonds
On May 21, 2012 6:35 PM, "Siko Bouterse"  wrote:


Hi Florence,
I guess I didn't do a very good job addressing these questions in the
earlier thread, so I'll try one more time :-)

Fellowships are temporary roles, so they are not treated as full time staff
positions.  They do not receive retirement benefits, and generally the
paperwork setup and associated benefits is not like staff, its more like
contractor, though again the specifics will vary according to fellowship
location, duration, and what US regulation dictates based on these
variables.  I am happily ignorant of the liability/insurance side of
things, so perhaps someone from the LCA team can address this if needed.

Is there a particular issue that makes you ask about this, or just
generally curious?

Best wishes,
Siko





--

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:29:51 +0200
From: Florence Devouard
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing 2
Community   Fellows
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

I can not help (I am optimistic with lot's of faith :))

Does the fellowship status implies that the WMF pays for health or
retirement benefits (as it would for a staff member) or does the fellow
receive a lump sum and manages by himself to pay for taxes and benefits
depending on the country he lives in (as would a contractor) ?

Does the fellowship status implies that, should the fellow get in
trouble, he would be considered "staff" (in terms of liability) or is he
on his own ? (which in my terms would be "if as staff", he is covered by
WMF insurance versus "if as contractor", he has to pay insurance by
himself).


Florence

--

Siko Bouterse
Head of Community Fellowships
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

sboute...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[David Gerard]

On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 2 Community Fellow

[Richard Symonds]

I'm asking from a purely good faith perspective, by the way: I tend to deal
with HR here at WMUK, and I'll be dealing with it more and more in future.
The more I know about how other Wikimedia orgs do things, Tyre better :-)

Richard Symonds
On May 21, 2012 7:09 PM, "Richard Symonds" 
wrote:

> I must admit to being curious, as do at least two others i've spoken to
> about this. With no benefits and no pensions, and what seems like hazy
> employment rights that vary from state to state (not to mention fellows
> from overseas) and person to person, this does seem a little odd. How much
> notice are they given, and what support they are entitled to from the WMF,
> would be very helpful.
>
> I'd  appreciate a more technical explanation so I can understand how the
> WMF deals with people on these short term contracts. :-)
>
> Richard Symonds
> On May 21, 2012 6:35 PM, "Siko Bouterse"  wrote:
>
>> Hi Florence,
>> I guess I didn't do a very good job addressing these questions in the
>> earlier thread, so I'll try one more time :-)
>>
>> Fellowships are temporary roles, so they are not treated as full time
>> staff
>> positions.  They do not receive retirement benefits, and generally the
>> paperwork setup and associated benefits is not like staff, its more like
>> contractor, though again the specifics will vary according to fellowship
>> location, duration, and what US regulation dictates based on these
>> variables.  I am happily ignorant of the liability/insurance side of
>> things, so perhaps someone from the LCA team can address this if needed.
>>
>> Is there a particular issue that makes you ask about this, or just
>> generally curious?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Siko
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:29:51 +0200
>> > From: Florence Devouard 
>> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing 2
>> >Community   Fellows
>> > Message-ID: 
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>> >
>> > I can not help (I am optimistic with lot's of faith :))
>> >
>> > Does the fellowship status implies that the WMF pays for health or
>> > retirement benefits (as it would for a staff member) or does the fellow
>> > receive a lump sum and manages by himself to pay for taxes and benefits
>> > depending on the country he lives in (as would a contractor) ?
>> >
>> > Does the fellowship status implies that, should the fellow get in
>> > trouble, he would be considered "staff" (in terms of liability) or is he
>> > on his own ? (which in my terms would be "if as staff", he is covered by
>> > WMF insurance versus "if as contractor", he has to pay insurance by
>> > himself).
>> >
>> >
>> > Florence
>> >
>> > --
>> Siko Bouterse
>> Head of Community Fellowships
>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>>
>> sboute...@wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 2 Community Fellow

[Richard Symonds]

I must admit to being curious, as do at least two others i've spoken to
about this. With no benefits and no pensions, and what seems like hazy
employment rights that vary from state to state (not to mention fellows
from overseas) and person to person, this does seem a little odd. How much
notice are they given, and what support they are entitled to from the WMF,
would be very helpful.

I'd  appreciate a more technical explanation so I can understand how the
WMF deals with people on these short term contracts. :-)

Richard Symonds
On May 21, 2012 6:35 PM, "Siko Bouterse"  wrote:

> Hi Florence,
> I guess I didn't do a very good job addressing these questions in the
> earlier thread, so I'll try one more time :-)
>
> Fellowships are temporary roles, so they are not treated as full time staff
> positions.  They do not receive retirement benefits, and generally the
> paperwork setup and associated benefits is not like staff, its more like
> contractor, though again the specifics will vary according to fellowship
> location, duration, and what US regulation dictates based on these
> variables.  I am happily ignorant of the liability/insurance side of
> things, so perhaps someone from the LCA team can address this if needed.
>
> Is there a particular issue that makes you ask about this, or just
> generally curious?
>
> Best wishes,
> Siko
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:29:51 +0200
> > From: Florence Devouard 
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing 2
> >Community   Fellows
> > Message-ID: 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> >
> > I can not help (I am optimistic with lot's of faith :))
> >
> > Does the fellowship status implies that the WMF pays for health or
> > retirement benefits (as it would for a staff member) or does the fellow
> > receive a lump sum and manages by himself to pay for taxes and benefits
> > depending on the country he lives in (as would a contractor) ?
> >
> > Does the fellowship status implies that, should the fellow get in
> > trouble, he would be considered "staff" (in terms of liability) or is he
> > on his own ? (which in my terms would be "if as staff", he is covered by
> > WMF insurance versus "if as contractor", he has to pay insurance by
> > himself).
> >
> >
> > Florence
> >
> > --
> Siko Bouterse
> Head of Community Fellowships
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> sboute...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Samuel Klein]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer  wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni  wrote:
>> On 21 May 2012 13:09, 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.

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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 2 Community Fellow

[Siko Bouterse]

Hi Florence,
I guess I didn't do a very good job addressing these questions in the
earlier thread, so I'll try one more time :-)

Fellowships are temporary roles, so they are not treated as full time staff
positions.  They do not receive retirement benefits, and generally the
paperwork setup and associated benefits is not like staff, its more like
contractor, though again the specifics will vary according to fellowship
location, duration, and what US regulation dictates based on these
variables.  I am happily ignorant of the liability/insurance side of
things, so perhaps someone from the LCA team can address this if needed.

Is there a particular issue that makes you ask about this, or just
generally curious?

Best wishes,
Siko


>
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:29:51 +0200
> From: Florence Devouard 
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing 2
>Community   Fellows
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> I can not help (I am optimistic with lot's of faith :))
>
> Does the fellowship status implies that the WMF pays for health or
> retirement benefits (as it would for a staff member) or does the fellow
> receive a lump sum and manages by himself to pay for taxes and benefits
> depending on the country he lives in (as would a contractor) ?
>
> Does the fellowship status implies that, should the fellow get in
> trouble, he would be considered "staff" (in terms of liability) or is he
> on his own ? (which in my terms would be "if as staff", he is covered by
> WMF insurance versus "if as contractor", he has to pay insurance by
> himself).
>
>
> Florence
>
> --
Siko Bouterse
Head of Community Fellowships
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

sboute...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Richard Symonds]

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  wrote:

> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni  wrote:
> > On 21 May 2012 13:09, 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.
> >
> > 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni  wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 13:09, 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.
>
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Sarah Stierch]

On 5/21/12 9:31 AM, geni wrote:

On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard  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 
<<

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[geni]

On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard  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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Johan Jönsson]

2012/5/21 David Gerard :
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[David Gerard]

>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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] next Wikidata office hours

[Lydia Pintscher]

Heya folks,

I just wanted to let you know that the next Wikidata office hours will
be on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Denny and I will be around on
IRC in #wikimedia-wikidata to answer any question you might have and
discuss. I assume there will be a few more questions than usual now
that we have a demo system. Logs will be published afterwards.

English: May 29 at 16:30 UTC
(http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16&min=30&sec=0&day=29&month=05&year=2012)
German: May 30 at 16:30 UTC
(http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16&min=30&sec=0&day=30&month=05&year=2012)


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Making www.wikipedia.org mobile friendly

[Jon Robson]

(Cross posting to wikimedia-l as suggested by MZMcBride)
Yup I'm actually talking about the project home page
(www.wikipedia.org) which some people land on from a google search.

I've been working on some adjustments to the styling of
www.wikipedia.org to make it mobile friendly for browsers that support
media queries- this could then in future be applied to other wiki*
projects (e.g. wiktionary).

I've had some very useful feedback from MZMcBride and I believe we
have now got it to a state [1] where we should consider synced to
live.

Please jump in on the discussions [2] if you have any objections or
further tweaks

[1] http://bug-attachment.wikimedia.org/attachment.cgi?id=10631
[2] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30389

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Platonides  wrote:
> On 18/05/12 17:54, Raylton P. Sousa wrote:
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/
>
> That's a different site. He's talking about the portal with links to the
> different editions.
>
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l