[Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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
On 28 May 2012 22:37, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 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 http://tommorris.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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com 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
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: 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
[Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
2012/5/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
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 m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com 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
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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com 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
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 richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 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 m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 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
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 meta...@gmail.com 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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com 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 http://code.google.com/p/avbot/ | StatMediaWikihttp://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es | WikiEvidens http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/ | WikiPapershttp://wikipapers.referata.com | WikiTeam http://code.google.com/p/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
On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk 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 meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer m...@gondwanaland.com 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 dger...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com 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
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 m...@gondwanaland.com 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
* 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
