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

[Tom Morris]

On 28 May 2012 22:37, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> I'd love to see -NC and -ND dropped from the CC catalog, but I doubt
> its going to happen.
>
> It would be nice if -NC and -ND had a time limit on them, after which
> the work becomes CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.
>

Although NC and ND cause pain for Wikipedians and Commonists and so
on, I'd actually not be a big fan of getting rid of them.

NC and ND give people a chance to dip their toe into free culture
licensing. Then upon finding that their leg hasn't been bitten off by
ravenous sharks and that actually mostly everything is fine, we can
come along and nudge them into upgrading.

See, for instance, the UK government: many government departments
published images under NC/ND. And then when nobody got fired for it,
they pass the Open Government License, which is a free content license
very much like CC BY.*

The question is: does NC/ND give people an excuse not to go for a
freer license, or does it give them a stepping stone towards freer
license from no licensing? It'd be nice if we could have some evidence
on this rather than anecdote trading. ;-)

NC and ND do have some uses. For instance, the very common use case of
publishing an academic paper. Yes, CC BY would be better. But BY-ND is
still pretty useful for the most common use case for a lot of academic
papers, namely photocopying a paper for a whole class of students...

(Plus getting rid of NC and ND won't mean that people won't stop
licensing works under NC/ND. There's a huge load of NC/ND work out
there already.)

* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OGL

-- 
Tom Morris


___
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

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Andrew Gray  wrote:
> On Monday, 21 May 2012, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> A thought on naming.
>
> The obvious way to badge such a license is through Creative Commons; but
> we've spilled vast amounts of metaphorical ink over "is NC free?" and "is
> ND free?", and one of the results is a good deal of confusion over what a
> "free license" is, what we should campaign for, etc etc etc.
>
> If we throw into the mix *another* license from the same stable, the
> situation gets even more muddled. The inevitable vague descriptions ("this
> work is under a creative commons license" with no definition or link is
> surprisingly common) will encompass a much wider range of use cases - "do
> what you like, just credit me" and "all rights utterly reserved until 2025"
> will be under the same umbrella.
>
> - Andrew.

I'd love to see -NC and -ND dropped from the CC catalog, but I doubt
its going to happen.

It would be nice if -NC and -ND had a time limit on them, after which
the work becomes CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

--
John Vandenberg

___
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

[Andrew Gray]

On Monday, 21 May 2012, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> > 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.
>

A thought on naming.

The obvious way to badge such a license is through Creative Commons; but
we've spilled vast amounts of metaphorical ink over "is NC free?" and "is
ND free?", and one of the results is a good deal of confusion over what a
"free license" is, what we should campaign for, etc etc etc.

If we throw into the mix *another* license from the same stable, the
situation gets even more muddled. The inevitable vague descriptions ("this
work is under a creative commons license" with no definition or link is
surprisingly common) will encompass a much wider range of use cases - "do
what you like, just credit me" and "all rights utterly reserved until 2025"
will be under the same umbrella.

- Andrew.


-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
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

[Cristian Consonni]

2012/5/21 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

Two gemstones, thanks for poiting those out.

Cristian

___
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 23 May 2012 08:46, David Gerard  wrote:
> That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a
> chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.

Why? Thats not going to help people who want to see game of thrones
without an HBO subscription or want to see avengers without paying.
Telling people they are legitimately grab early friends episodes isn't
going to stop them acquiring copies of the big bang theory.


-- 
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

[geni]

On 23 May 2012 08:21, David Gerard  wrote:
> That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
> very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
> that is actually the reason.

Most of the world was on life+50 or greater before the latest round of
US copyright extensions and before 1989 the US didn't really engage
with international copyright very much.

Of the various common copyright terms Life+70 tends to have more to do
with Germany and the EU than anything else. Life+50 tends to be due to
a mix of laws acquired from various empires (the most useful map when
dealing with copyright is often
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Empires.svg) or the bern
convention. The US might try and get countries to enforce their laws
but the actual terms are more likely to be colonial relics (although
why north korea's copyright law looks so German will remain a mystery)



-- 
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

[David Gerard]

On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert  wrote:

> The whole idea of copyright - as the US started seeing it, in our
> constitution and thence onwards, is properly rewarding creative people
> for their efforts.


Well, actually it was for the benefit of printers. As is reflected in
copyright today, which is for the benefit of publishers.


>  Free content and culture and information -
> Wikipedia included - is great.  I don't see any need to forcibly tear
> down the whole edifice of commercial paid arts in the process.


I think this is a straw man rendering of the position, but I do think
that forcibly tearing down the whole edifice would be a vast
improvement in the world.


> In particular, the public has no problem with individual musicians and
> writers being rewarded for their efforts.  Trying to overcome that
> would mean making enemies out of most of the populace on this when we
> don't have to.
> Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term.
> That's a mistake.  The whole CC and free content movement needs to
> step up.  We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane
> term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except
> insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I
> feel little remaining sympathy for.


That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a
chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.


- 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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>
>
> Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term.
>
> That's a mistake.  The whole CC and free content movement needs to
> step up.  We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane
> term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except
> insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I
> feel little remaining sympathy for.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

I think the larger point is that regard for copyright coming to a death
knell by the internet, and the care from Nobody is how people make money
based on this concept.  Should musicians less rely on publishing rights and
yield them to CC and publish them on Wikisource, and rely on touring and
willing-to-pay agreements with commercial use?  That's just an example, we
have the recent issue of bringing United States tax-payer funded research
being released under strict commercial licensing in order to make money for
publishers and not the researchers or the source of the funds.  It's about
letting go of the old source of economics for publishers and embracing a
new model.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[George Herbert]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer  wrote:
> Maximising artistic production is a terrible goal for policy.

Why?

The whole idea of copyright - as the US started seeing it, in our
constitution and thence onwards, is properly rewarding creative people
for their efforts.  Free content and culture and information -
Wikipedia included - is great.  I don't see any need to forcibly tear
down the whole edifice of commercial paid arts in the process.

In particular, the public has no problem with individual musicians and
writers being rewarded for their efforts.  Trying to overcome that
would mean making enemies out of most of the populace on this when we
don't have to.

The authors I've talked to about this see books turned into films in
the 8-10-15-20 year timeframes and want at least that much, and also
notice that the Tolkein estate are making out like bandits from the
recent trilogy, which was far longer downstream.

> 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.

Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term.

That's a mistake.  The whole CC and free content movement needs to
step up.  We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane
term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except
insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I
feel little remaining sympathy for.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni  wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> >> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
> >> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
> >> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
> >> protectors and the world will listen.
>
> > However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
> > for other reasons.
>
>
> That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
> very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
> that is actually the reason.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
Non-sarcastic reply, it's not about the US or harmony.  It's about
understanding, and the expectations of understanding international
copyright law through the web is a high specialized skill not even really
developed.  We have regular copyright complaints to Wikimedia sites from
people that lack a general understanding of the national and international
copyright rights. Often times these are questions that no lawyer I know can
genuinely answer, because there isn't one for their particular country.  We
just have to wing it and explain what we know.

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni  wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
> >> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
> >> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
> >> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
> >> protectors and the world will listen.
>
> > However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
> > for other reasons.
>
>
> That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
> very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
> that is actually the reason.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

Doesn't matter the nation, David.  Nobody cares[1].

1. < http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares >

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
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 23 May 2012 08:16, geni  wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg  wrote:

>> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
>> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
>> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
>> protectors and the world will listen.

> However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
> for other reasons.


That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works
very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So
that is actually the reason.


- 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

[geni]

On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg  wrote:
> People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
> Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
> do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
> protectors and the world will listen.

However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are
for other reasons.

But this is all irrelevant. The title of this thread is pretty much
correct. People don't care about copyright. The idea that this is due
to the length is pretty laughable when you look at what copyrights
they are most likely to break.


-- 
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

[John Vandenberg]

People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence.
Most people dont care about copyright.  Most people do have kids and
do know who Mickey Mouse is.  Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his
protectors and the world will listen.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Amory Meltzer  wrote:
> Less Mickey Mouse, more Sonny Bono.  Beloved cartoon characters from
> everyone's childhood are harder to campaign against than one of Cher's
> ex-husbands.
>
> ~A
>
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>>
>> 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



-- 
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

[Amory Meltzer]

Less Mickey Mouse, more Sonny Bono.  Beloved cartoon characters from
everyone's childhood are harder to campaign against than one of Cher's
ex-husbands.

~A


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:31 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

>
> 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

[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

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] 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] 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] 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