On 5/21/12 9:31 AM, geni wrote: 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/* <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><<

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 &lt;ml(a)gondwanaland.com&gt; wrote:

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer &lt;ml(a)gondwanaland.com&gt; wrote: I think it's about time. 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

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 &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, emijrp &lt;emijrp(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. David Gerard writes: 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.] 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. SJ

2012/5/21 David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Two gemstones, thanks for poiting those out. Cristian

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin &lt;kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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 &lt;ml(a)gondwanaland.com&gt; wrote: 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 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.

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: 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

On 23 May 2012 08:46, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann &lt;derhoermi(a)gmx.net&gt;et>: Yes. Very much so. //Johan Jönsson -- http://johanjonsson.net/wikipedia

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 &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg &lt;jayvdb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

On 23 May 2012 08:21, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Andrew Gray &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; 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. -- John Vandenberg