Tim Starling wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
My secret dream is to see the United States Congress hauled up before the Arbitration Committee. Maybe we could get them to pass clearer fair-use legislation as part of their parole.
Clearer fair use legislation is not likely to do us any good. What we want is *more generous* fair use legislation.
US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the world. Coupled with US-centric Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to distribute Wikipedia offline outside the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US fair use legislation was brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more restrictive not less.
You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other countries less restrictive?
I understand the concern about Wikipedia policy vis-a-vis the laws of nations generally, and personally I think we should avoid relying on fair use if at all possible, but that's not what I was getting at. The point was that asking for more clarity on these issues from Congress, or any other body where rights organizations wield their influence, would likely only result in making it more clear when the answer is "No."
Or, you know, they could just give us money. Whatever.
Now there's a question - if the US government offered us money, no strings attached, how would people respond?
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
<snip stuff about US congress>
Or, you know, they could just give us money. Whatever.
Now there's a question - if the US government offered us money, no strings attached, how would people respond?
They'd accuse us of being Americentric, of course.
And to a certain extent (at least in terms of the "popular culture" stuff, which we would be better off without), we are.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Michael Snow wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Now there's a question - if the US government offered us money, no strings attached, how would people respond?
They'd accuse us of being Americentric, of course.
And to a certain extent (at least in terms of the "popular culture" stuff, which we would be better off without), we are.
This is not going to change any time soon, because the pool of editors is drawn from those with access to the Internet, and the Internet is mainly in the U.S., especially when you consider that we are working on the English-language version. I see this as self-correcting in the long term, with other nations increasing their access, though I'm not sure about the contribution to be expected from Nigeria's Internet pool.
Peter (Skyring)
Michael Snow wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
My secret dream is to see the United States Congress hauled up before the Arbitration Committee. Maybe we could get them to pass clearer fair-use legislation as part of their parole.
Clearer fair use legislation is not likely to do us any good. What we want is *more generous* fair use legislation.
US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the world. Coupled with US-centric Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to distribute Wikipedia offline outside the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US fair use legislation was brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more restrictive not less.
You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other countries less restrictive?
We were talking about what we'd like the Congress to do, not WIPO. Come to think of it, there's a step Congress could take towards harmonization that would be more useful for us: to reduce the term of copyright to the Berne Convention minimum of life + 50 years.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
We were talking about what we'd like the Congress to do, not WIPO. Come to think of it, there's a
step Congress could take towards harmonization that would be more useful for us: to reduce the term of copyright to the Berne Convention minimum of life + 50 years.
Interesting comment from someone whose country only recently moved up to life + 70. ;-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
We were talking about what we'd like the Congress to do, not WIPO. Come to think of it, there's a
step Congress could take towards harmonization that would be more useful for us: to reduce the term of copyright to the Berne Convention minimum of life + 50 years.
Interesting comment from someone whose country only recently moved up to life + 70. ;-)
I suspect that this was somehow tied into the "Free Trade" (cough) agreement that Disney brainwashed Bush into brainwashing Howard to sign.
On 1/31/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Now there's a question - if the US government offered us money, no strings attached, how would people respond?
Why, they'd probably hitch up a saddle to their pigs and fly around the city!
FF
On 1/31/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Michael Snow wrote: US fair use legislation is already among the most generous in the world. Coupled with US-centric Wikipedia policy, this has the effect that anyone attempting to distribute Wikipedia offline outside the US risks being sued for copyright infringment. I'd prefer it if US fair use legislation was brought into line with the rest of the world, i.e. made more restrictive not less.
You mean this seriously? You'd rather make fair use in the US more restrictive than make fair use/dealing/practice/whatever in other countries less restrictive?
I understand the concern about Wikipedia policy vis-a-vis the laws of nations generally, and personally I think we should avoid relying on fair use if at all possible, but that's not what I was getting at. The point was that asking for more clarity on these issues from Congress, or any other body where rights organizations wield their influence, would likely only result in making it more clear when the answer is "No."
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Ec
On 2/4/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Ec
Getty would slightly object as would AP.
-- geni
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Wasn't copyright originally intended to be blanket 25 years, regardless of how alive or otherwise the author was?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Wasn't copyright originally intended to be blanket 25 years, regardless of how alive or otherwise the author was?
In Queen Anne's Law of 1710 it was 14 years plus 14 years renewal.
Noah Webster cinvinced congress to allow heirs to renew after 28 years, but they forgot to include that the copyright holder could renew it himself. Renewals were an interesting and valuable aspect of US law, and they imposed strict requirements on who could do the renewing, and provided a one year window for taking action. If you missed the window, too bad. One of the more positive aspects of that provision is that it gave a second chance to an author who originally got a bad deal from his publisher; the publisher could not exercise the renewal.
Superfically repealing the renewal procedures was to conform with international standards. Life + 70 is now a part of the US law, even though that will not have meaningful effects until 2047 when work by authors who died in 1976 will go into the public domain. Repealing renewals was a great benefit for holders of big archives, and publishers who could not identify or track down who really was entitled to renew. Now they can make big money out of nostalgia.
It is worth pointing out that a companey like Disney might not be as affected by a use-it-or-lose-it provisions. Over the years they have been masterful when it comes to recycling old material.
Ec
You've probably had several people say this but ... please can you correct your computer's clock? Your mail is coming through as from 1997.
Thanks,
sannse
Sorry for that folks - don'tcyah hate it when you press that send, and then instantly realise you mucked up.
--sannse
sannse wrote:
You've probably had several people say this but ... please can you correct your computer's clock? Your mail is coming through as from 1997.
Thanks,
sannse
That's why we're wikipedians I suppose :D
On 2/4/06, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
Sorry for that folks - don'tcyah hate it when you press that send, and then instantly realise you mucked up.
--sannse
sannse wrote:
You've probably had several people say this but ... please can you correct your computer's clock? Your mail is coming through as from
Thanks,
sannse
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
Test
Fred
On Feb 4, 2006, at 4:09 PM, sannse wrote:
You've probably had several people say this but ... please can you correct your computer's clock? Your mail is coming through as from 1997.
Thanks,
sannse _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/3/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
Ec
At the very least a liberal application of adverse possession and prescriptive easements to copyright would be nice. After all, if "intellectual property" really is "property", one should have to actively defend the property in order to keep it.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 2/3/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter all that much in my daily life.
But making it more clear when the answer is "No." That'd be tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision. If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
At the very least a liberal application of adverse possession and prescriptive easements to copyright would be nice. After all, if "intellectual property" really is "property", one should have to actively defend the property in order to keep it.
This makes fair use the intellectual counterpart to squatters' rights. ;-)
One point that I have sometimes raised is that a property rights vest in a person (which can include a corporation or a trust). Unless somebody exists to own the rights there can be no copyrights. If a corporation owns certain copyrights, then goes bankrupt and the copyrights (which may have already been long forgotten) are not transferred in the bankruptcy proceedings, there is a strong argument for saying that the copyrights went into the public domain at the time of bankruptcy. Similarly, if a jurisdiction specifies only that copyrights are passed on to children and granchildren of the author, rather than according to rules of succession, one cannot read into that that cousins or nephews could gain those rights.
Ec