Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home
Hi Dimi,
Thank you for sending this over. Is there an approximate deadline for this?
Thanks and regards, Stevie
On 18 September 2014 16:59, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
There is not definite deadline, but I will have a first face-to-face meeting the Observatory about this coming Tuesday.
2014-09-18 18:02 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hi Dimi,
Thank you for sending this over. Is there an approximate deadline for this?
Thanks and regards, Stevie
On 18 September 2014 16:59, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Thanks Dimi, will try and have a look before then.
On 18 September 2014 17:07, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
There is not definite deadline, but I will have a first face-to-face meeting the Observatory about this coming Tuesday.
2014-09-18 18:02 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:
Hi Dimi,
Thank you for sending this over. Is there an approximate deadline for this?
Thanks and regards, Stevie
On 18 September 2014 16:59, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--
Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Here are the four basic questions (copied from the document) and some quick comments in italics.
"In effect the first point, which we propose as the starting point for our study, amounts to a quantification of the contribution of works made available under PD&OL to the economy. In order to make such quantification, we need to answer some basic questions:
Which are the sectors that produce works that are licensed under PD&OL, and which are the sectors that use them (the proposal provides some examples, but we need more systematic information)—is this information available?
LV: We could create a more rigorously compiled list, but I’m not aware of “quantification” in the sense they seem to be wanting.
Given that these works are not registered anywhere, where should we look for data on the quantity of such works?
LV: CC has gathered numbers on this in the past; could talk to them about it?
Do BEUC/EDRi/Wikimedia have any suggestions as to valuation methods?
LV: The best thing I’m aware of on this is http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338563 (Economic Value of Wikipedia, by Jonathan Band), which contains a number of valuation metrics that could be extended to open culture more generally.
“Open license” does not mean that one can do with the work whatever one wants. Is infringement or misuse a problem for the open source community, and if so, are there are any studies that have examined its extent and impact?
LV: None that I’m aware of, but I’ll ask around and get back to the list.
Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing". The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment. Thanks a lot! Dimi [1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home
If someone with less rusty coding skills wanted to play with some of these questions, by the way, it might be interesting to poke at commoncrawl.org's data set to answer some of these questions.
For example, you could see what %age of works there indicated a CC license as an attempt to understand the overall number of/popularity of CC.
It has also been suggested to me (off-list) that someone could do something like this to investigate the open license infringement question:
1. Identify 100-200 most common openly-licensed java libraries (.jars) 2. Find instances of those in commoncrawl (if commoncrawl does not discard code files) 3. Attempt to identify what, if any, license compliance was occurring around redistribution of those libraries.
Same approach could be done with popular commons images, of course, though .jar files may be easier to identify/focus on.
Thinking out loud- Luis
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here are the four basic questions (copied from the document) and some quick comments *in italics.*
"In effect the first point, which we propose as the starting point for our study, amounts to a quantification of the contribution of works made available under PD&OL to the economy. In order to make such quantification, we need to answer some basic questions:
- Which are the sectors that produce works that are licensed under
PD&OL, and which are the sectors that use them (the proposal provides some examples, but we need more systematic information)—is this information available?
*LV: We could create a more rigorously compiled list, but I’m not aware of “quantification” in the sense they seem to be wanting.*
- Given that these works are not registered anywhere, where should welook for data on the quantity of such works?
*LV: CC has gathered numbers on this in the past; could talk to them about it?*
- Do BEUC/EDRi/Wikimedia have any suggestions as to valuationmethods?
*LV: The best thing I’m aware of on this is *http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338563 (Economic Value of Wikipedia, by Jonathan Band)*, which contains a number of valuation metrics that could be extended to open culture more generally.*
- “Open license” does not mean that one can do with the work whateverone wants. Is infringement or misuse a problem for the open source community, and if so, are there are any studies that have examined its extent and impact?
*LV: None that I’m aware of, but I’ll ask around and get back to the list.*
Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home <Questions_WG_23092014.pdf>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here are the four basic questions (copied from the document) and some quick comments *in italics.*
"In effect the first point, which we propose as the starting point for our study, amounts to a quantification of the contribution of works made available under PD&OL to the economy. In order to make such quantification, we need to answer some basic questions:
- Which are the sectors that produce works that are licensed under
PD&OL, and which are the sectors that use them (the proposal provides some examples, but we need more systematic information)—is this information available?
*LV: We could create a more rigorously compiled list, but I’m not aware of “quantification” in the sense they seem to be wanting.*
- Given that these works are not registered anywhere, where should welook for data on the quantity of such works?
*LV: CC has gathered numbers on this in the past; could talk to them about it?*
Yah, lemme ask around to see if there are any useable numbers we can get
on this. tvol
- Do BEUC/EDRi/Wikimedia have any suggestions as to valuation
methods?
*LV: The best thing I’m aware of on this is *http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338563 (Economic Value of Wikipedia, by Jonathan Band)*, which contains a number of valuation metrics that could be extended to open culture more generally.*
- “Open license” does not mean that one can do with the work whateverone wants. Is infringement or misuse a problem for the open source community, and if so, are there are any studies that have examined its extent and impact?
*LV: None that I’m aware of, but I’ll ask around and get back to the list.*
Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home <Questions_WG_23092014.pdf>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Salut la liste!
I had an Observatory meeting of the WG "IP in the digital world" which will deal with our study. Had a chance to discuss things with the Observatory's economists and we decided to engage in a more intensive discussion over email, phone and at the annual plenary in Alicante next month. In the room it was basically just me and the economist speaking as no other member (i.e. none of the industry representatives) seemed to show an interest in this one.
Here the main requests and my comments:
1. They really want us to compile a list of sectors.
I asked for a economic modelling study that assess the whole situation, but they aren't keen on this. Apparently their budget for this for 2015 is 25.000 Euro and - I am really quoting here - they want something "quick&credible".
Additionally they want to make this study a counterpoint to their IP contribution study [1], which was released last year. This was also our initial starting point, as we wanted to be able to say "yes, IP is important but it builds up on a thriving commons". In the first study they just used a number of industry sectors and looked at it. They proposed we should start by taking this list and amending it as we see fit. ([2] page 27 ff.)
My feeling is that we should go for this approach as a start, but I am a bit scared that this could limit the results not in our favour. A longer list with sectors we know free&open is king would help. Also, the Observatory has a tendency to do follow-up and complementary studies, so I could very well see them continuing with such research after this initial experiment.
2. They really want to know if infringements is a problem for us
The official name of the Observatory being "EU Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights", they seemed really keen on including infringements of PD&OL in the study. I said I could give them a few case studies or examples, but hadn't heard of any studies on this. Should we give in and let them do research on this, although it might take focus off the economic contribution part?
3. They are grateful for any help or pointers, especially on evaluation methods
Their economists seem a bit... excited to tackle a completely new field for them. Frankly speaking, they are a bit usure what to do, which is why they want to stick to a limited list of sectors. They are also asking for advice on evaluation we might give them. I promised to point them to the 'Wikipedia evaluation study' and the Polish 'study on the reuse value of open data'. Anything else we might pitch in?
Feel free to share this with your circles. Also, we'll be integrated and get to comment pretty much every step of the way, so there will be many opportunities to contribute and to nudge things in our direction.
Thanks for reading, Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/ip-contribution [2] https://oami.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/obser...
2014-09-19 20:18 GMT+02:00 Timothy Vollmer tvol@creativecommons.org:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here are the four basic questions (copied from the document) and some quick comments *in italics.*
"In effect the first point, which we propose as the starting point for our study, amounts to a quantification of the contribution of works made available under PD&OL to the economy. In order to make such quantification, we need to answer some basic questions:
- Which are the sectors that produce works that are licensed under
PD&OL, and which are the sectors that use them (the proposal provides some examples, but we need more systematic information)—is this information available?
*LV: We could create a more rigorously compiled list, but I’m not aware of “quantification” in the sense they seem to be wanting.*
- Given that these works are not registered anywhere, where shouldwe look for data on the quantity of such works?
*LV: CC has gathered numbers on this in the past; could talk to them about it?*
Yah, lemme ask around to see if there are any useable numbers we can get
on this. tvol
- Do BEUC/EDRi/Wikimedia have any suggestions as to valuation
methods?
*LV: The best thing I’m aware of on this is *http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338563 (Economic Value of Wikipedia, by Jonathan Band)*, which contains a number of valuation metrics that could be extended to open culture more generally.*
- “Open license” does not mean that one can do with the workwhatever one wants. Is infringement or misuse a problem for the open source community, and if so, are there are any studies that have examined its extent and impact?
*LV: None that I’m aware of, but I’ll ask around and get back to the list.*
Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home <Questions_WG_23092014.pdf>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Timothy Vollmer Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons Get Creative Commons Updates http://bit.ly/commonsnews
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Salut la liste!
I had an Observatory meeting of the WG "IP in the digital world" which will deal with our study. Had a chance to discuss things with the Observatory's economists and we decided to engage in a more intensive discussion over email, phone and at the annual plenary in Alicante next month. In the room it was basically just me and the economist speaking as no other member (i.e. none of the industry representatives) seemed to show an interest in this one.
Here the main requests and my comments:
- They really want us to compile a list of sectors.
I asked for a economic modelling study that assess the whole situation, but they aren't keen on this. Apparently their budget for this for 2015 is 25.000 Euro and - I am really quoting here - they want something "quick&credible".
Additionally they want to make this study a counterpoint to their IP contribution study [1], which was released last year. This was also our initial starting point, as we wanted to be able to say "yes, IP is important but it builds up on a thriving commons". In the first study they just used a number of industry sectors and looked at it. They proposed we should start by taking this list and amending it as we see fit. ([2] page 27 ff.)
My feeling is that we should go for this approach as a start, but I am a bit scared that this could limit the results not in our favour. A longer list with sectors we know free&open is king would help. Also, the Observatory has a tendency to do follow-up and complementary studies, so I could very well see them continuing with such research after this initial experiment.
What a frustratingly framed question. I am half-tempted to respond with the list of Disney movies based on public domain works https://medium.com/@derekkhanna/disney-works-based-on-public-domain-eb49ac34c3da ;)
- They really want to know if infringements is a problem for us
The official name of the Observatory being "EU Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights", they seemed really keen on including infringements of PD&OL in the study. I said I could give them a few case studies or examples, but hadn't heard of any studies on this. Should we give in and let them do research on this, although it might take focus off the economic contribution part?
If it helps them act at all, I can't see how it hurts us to have them think about it. It's not the most frustrating mis-framing to come out of Brussels. :)
I was pointed by an acquaintance at these studies that are specific to the use of open source in the Android App Store (a space that is easy to study):
The press releases for the initial study and a follow-up are here: http://www.openlogic.com/wazi/bid/187975/Research-Mobile-Apps-and-Open-Sourc... http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/210112/OpenLogic-Code-Scan-Reveals-Increas...
I also wrote aaa 3-part blog series on the research, results, etc. here: http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/223525/Apps-App-Store-and-Open-Source-Part... http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/226481/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par... http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/230007/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
The headline number is that they found 71% non-compliance in the first study; down to 38% of apps non-compliant in the followup (in 2012).
- They are grateful for any help or pointers, especially on evaluation
methods
Their economists seem a bit... excited to tackle a completely new field for them. Frankly speaking, they are a bit usure what to do, which is why they want to stick to a limited list of sectors. They are also asking for advice on evaluation we might give them. I promised to point them to the 'Wikipedia evaluation study' and the Polish 'study on the reuse value of open data'. Anything else we might pitch in?
I will continue discussing and thinking on it.
Luis
Feel free to share this with your circles. Also, we'll be integrated and get to comment pretty much every step of the way, so there will be many opportunities to contribute and to nudge things in our direction.
Thanks for reading, Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/ip-contribution [2] https://oami.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/obser...
2014-09-19 20:18 GMT+02:00 Timothy Vollmer tvol@creativecommons.org:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Here are the four basic questions (copied from the document) and some quick comments *in italics.*
"In effect the first point, which we propose as the starting point for our study, amounts to a quantification of the contribution of works made available under PD&OL to the economy. In order to make such quantification, we need to answer some basic questions:
- Which are the sectors that produce works that are licensed under
PD&OL, and which are the sectors that use them (the proposal provides some examples, but we need more systematic information)—is this information available?
*LV: We could create a more rigorously compiled list, but I’m not aware of “quantification” in the sense they seem to be wanting.*
- Given that these works are not registered anywhere, where shouldwe look for data on the quantity of such works?
*LV: CC has gathered numbers on this in the past; could talk to them about it?*
Yah, lemme ask around to see if there are any useable numbers we can get
on this. tvol
- Do BEUC/EDRi/Wikimedia have any suggestions as to valuation
methods?
*LV: The best thing I’m aware of on this is *http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2338563 (Economic Value of Wikipedia, by Jonathan Band)*, which contains a number of valuation metrics that could be extended to open culture more generally.*
- “Open license” does not mean that one can do with the workwhatever one wants. Is infringement or misuse a problem for the open source community, and if so, are there are any studies that have examined its extent and impact?
*LV: None that I’m aware of, but I’ll ask around and get back to the list.*
Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The IPR Observatory [1] of the European Commission have now officially included a study requested by us with the support of other civil society actors in their 2015 working programme. The study is on "economic contribution of public domain and open licensing".
The Observatory has sent us some additional questions now that might be important for the final outcome. I would appreciate any comments/ideas/help in answering those in the best possible way. The questions can be seen in the PDF attachment.
Thanks a lot! Dimi
[1]https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home <Questions_WG_23092014.pdf>
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
-- Timothy Vollmer Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons Get Creative Commons Updates http://bit.ly/commonsnews
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
2014-09-27 1:39 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Salut la liste!
I had an Observatory meeting of the WG "IP in the digital world" which will deal with our study. Had a chance to discuss things with the Observatory's economists and we decided to engage in a more intensive discussion over email, phone and at the annual plenary in Alicante next month. In the room it was basically just me and the economist speaking as no other member (i.e. none of the industry representatives) seemed to show an interest in this one.
Here the main requests and my comments:
- They really want us to compile a list of sectors.
I asked for a economic modelling study that assess the whole situation, but they aren't keen on this. Apparently their budget for this for 2015 is 25.000 Euro and - I am really quoting here - they want something "quick&credible".
Additionally they want to make this study a counterpoint to their IP contribution study [1], which was released last year. This was also our initial starting point, as we wanted to be able to say "yes, IP is important but it builds up on a thriving commons". In the first study they just used a number of industry sectors and looked at it. They proposed we should start by taking this list and amending it as we see fit. ([2] page 27 ff.)
My feeling is that we should go for this approach as a start, but I am a bit scared that this could limit the results not in our favour. A longer list with sectors we know free&open is king would help. Also, the Observatory has a tendency to do follow-up and complementary studies, so I could very well see them continuing with such research after this initial experiment.
What a frustratingly framed question. I am half-tempted to respond with the list of Disney movies based on public domain works https://medium.com/@derekkhanna/disney-works-based-on-public-domain-eb49ac34c3da ;)
- They really want to know if infringements is a problem for us
The official name of the Observatory being "EU Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights", they seemed really keen on including infringements of PD&OL in the study. I said I could give them a few case studies or examples, but hadn't heard of any studies on this. Should we give in and let them do research on this, although it might take focus off the economic contribution part?
If it helps them act at all, I can't see how it hurts us to have them think about it. It's not the most frustrating mis-framing to come out of Brussels. :)
I was pointed by an acquaintance at these studies that are specific to the use of open source in the Android App Store (a space that is easy to study):
The press releases for the initial study and a follow-up are here:
http://www.openlogic.com/wazi/bid/187975/Research-Mobile-Apps-and-Open-Sourc...
http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/210112/OpenLogic-Code-Scan-Reveals-Increas...
I also wrote aaa 3-part blog series on the research, results, etc. here:
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/223525/Apps-App-Store-and-Open-Source-Part...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/226481/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/230007/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
The headline number is that they found 71% non-compliance in the first study; down to 38% of apps non-compliant in the followup (in 2012).
I think key to this question is the 'problem' part. For Public Domain that is easy: no it is not. At all. For the free licenses, it would require more of an opinion survey than an economical approach. Something very interesting, but perhaps not the kind of study they are best at? It would (in my view) require mostly asking contributors if they are limiting their contributions because of infringements. Interesting, and sounds like something CC or in general open license movements (including free software) might have investigated to get some base numbers? I wouldn't suggest to start off with this though.
-- Lodewijk
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:01 AM, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
2014-09-27 1:39 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
- They really want to know if infringements is a problem for us
The official name of the Observatory being "EU Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights", they seemed really keen on including infringements of PD&OL in the study. I said I could give them a few case studies or examples, but hadn't heard of any studies on this. Should we give in and let them do research on this, although it might take focus off the economic contribution part?
If it helps them act at all, I can't see how it hurts us to have them think about it. It's not the most frustrating mis-framing to come out of Brussels. :)
I was pointed by an acquaintance at these studies that are specific to the use of open source in the Android App Store (a space that is easy to study):
The press releases for the initial study and a follow-up are here:
http://www.openlogic.com/wazi/bid/187975/Research-Mobile-Apps-and-Open-Sourc...
http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/210112/OpenLogic-Code-Scan-Reveals-Increas...
I also wrote aaa 3-part blog series on the research, results, etc. here:
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/223525/Apps-App-Store-and-Open-Source-Part...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/226481/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/230007/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
The headline number is that they found 71% non-compliance in the first study; down to 38% of apps non-compliant in the followup (in 2012).
I think key to this question is the 'problem' part. For Public Domain that is easy: no it is not. At all. For the free licenses, it would require more of an opinion survey than an economical approach. Something very interesting, but perhaps not the kind of study they are best at? It would (in my view) require mostly asking contributors if they are limiting their contributions because of infringements.
Yes, exactly right. Perhaps to be constructive we suggest that there are many different motivations for open contributors, so that any investigation of infringement must be paired with an investigation of:
1. motives for contribution that are not impacted by infringement [there is tons of research in this area http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&q=motivation+of+open+source+developers&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, some even by economists] 2. overall trends in contribution [this shouldn't be too hard to get out of, say, github/sourceforge?]
Luis
Good news, everyone!
The Communia Association [1] has just joined the Observatory with the goal of working on this study. Communia is a European network dedicated to the public domain (which includes free licensing by their definition). Members include Kennisland, Creative Commons and many universities and research institutions. Their manifesto has, among others, been signed by WMFR, WMIT, WMAR, WMNL, WMCH, WMUK, WMCZ and many board members from other chapters.
This year's plenary during which the study will be partly discussed is next week on Tuesday and Wednesday. I will keep you posted on the discussion.
Cheers, Dimi
[1]http://www.communia-project.eu/about
2014-09-29 18:37 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:01 AM, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
2014-09-27 1:39 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
- They really want to know if infringements is a problem for us
The official name of the Observatory being "EU Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights", they seemed really keen on including infringements of PD&OL in the study. I said I could give them a few case studies or examples, but hadn't heard of any studies on this. Should we give in and let them do research on this, although it might take focus off the economic contribution part?
If it helps them act at all, I can't see how it hurts us to have them think about it. It's not the most frustrating mis-framing to come out of Brussels. :)
I was pointed by an acquaintance at these studies that are specific to the use of open source in the Android App Store (a space that is easy to study):
The press releases for the initial study and a follow-up are here:
http://www.openlogic.com/wazi/bid/187975/Research-Mobile-Apps-and-Open-Sourc...
http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/210112/OpenLogic-Code-Scan-Reveals-Increas...
I also wrote aaa 3-part blog series on the research, results, etc. here:
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/223525/Apps-App-Store-and-Open-Source-Part...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/226481/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/230007/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
The headline number is that they found 71% non-compliance in the first study; down to 38% of apps non-compliant in the followup (in 2012).
I think key to this question is the 'problem' part. For Public Domain that is easy: no it is not. At all. For the free licenses, it would require more of an opinion survey than an economical approach. Something very interesting, but perhaps not the kind of study they are best at? It would (in my view) require mostly asking contributors if they are limiting their contributions because of infringements.
Yes, exactly right. Perhaps to be constructive we suggest that there are many different motivations for open contributors, so that any investigation of infringement must be paired with an investigation of:
- motives for contribution that are not impacted by infringement
[there is tons of research in this area http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&q=motivation+of+open+source+developers&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, some even by economists] 2. overall trends in contribution [this shouldn't be too hard to get out of, say, github/sourceforge?]
Luis
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hello, everyone!
The people working on this from the Observatory have received all the compiled answers from this list. The study will be done in-house, which implies a smaller scale, but give us potentially more control over the procedure.
They aim at coming up with a methodlogy/scope by end of the year and sharing it with us.
Best, Dimi
2014-10-23 16:52 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:
Good news, everyone!
The Communia Association [1] has just joined the Observatory with the goal of working on this study. Communia is a European network dedicated to the public domain (which includes free licensing by their definition). Members include Kennisland, Creative Commons and many universities and research institutions. Their manifesto has, among others, been signed by WMFR, WMIT, WMAR, WMNL, WMCH, WMUK, WMCZ and many board members from other chapters.
This year's plenary during which the study will be partly discussed is next week on Tuesday and Wednesday. I will keep you posted on the discussion.
Cheers, Dimi
[1]http://www.communia-project.eu/about
2014-09-29 18:37 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:01 AM, L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com wrote:
2014-09-27 1:39 GMT+02:00 Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
- They really want to know if infringements is a problem for us
The official name of the Observatory being "EU Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights", they seemed really keen on including infringements of PD&OL in the study. I said I could give them a few case studies or examples, but hadn't heard of any studies on this. Should we give in and let them do research on this, although it might take focus off the economic contribution part?
If it helps them act at all, I can't see how it hurts us to have them think about it. It's not the most frustrating mis-framing to come out of Brussels. :)
I was pointed by an acquaintance at these studies that are specific to the use of open source in the Android App Store (a space that is easy to study):
The press releases for the initial study and a follow-up are here:
http://www.openlogic.com/wazi/bid/187975/Research-Mobile-Apps-and-Open-Sourc...
http://www.openlogic.com/news/bid/210112/OpenLogic-Code-Scan-Reveals-Increas...
I also wrote aaa 3-part blog series on the research, results, etc. here:
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/223525/Apps-App-Store-and-Open-Source-Part...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/226481/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
http://www.openlogic.com/blog/bid/230007/Apps-App-Stores-and-Open-Source-Par...
The headline number is that they found 71% non-compliance in the first study; down to 38% of apps non-compliant in the followup (in 2012).
I think key to this question is the 'problem' part. For Public Domain that is easy: no it is not. At all. For the free licenses, it would require more of an opinion survey than an economical approach. Something very interesting, but perhaps not the kind of study they are best at? It would (in my view) require mostly asking contributors if they are limiting their contributions because of infringements.
Yes, exactly right. Perhaps to be constructive we suggest that there are many different motivations for open contributors, so that any investigation of infringement must be paired with an investigation of:
- motives for contribution that are not impacted by infringement
[there is tons of research in this area http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&q=motivation+of+open+source+developers&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5, some even by economists] 2. overall trends in contribution [this shouldn't be too hard to get out of, say, github/sourceforge?]
Luis
-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
*This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.*
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org