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
