From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study:
http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-law... 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.
2012/5/21 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study:
http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-law... 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
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dgerard@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-law... 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.
On 5/21/12 9:31 AM, geni wrote:
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerarddgerard@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-law... 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.
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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dgerard@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
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 ml@gondwanaland.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dgerard@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
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.symonds@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 ml@gondwanaland.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dgerard@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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer ml@gondwanaland.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dgerard@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.
I think it's about time.
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?
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
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta.sj@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.
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 dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta.sj@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
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.sj@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 dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta.sj@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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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:
the Swedish party says five years,[1]
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.]
Creative Commons offers the Founders' Copyright, 14 years: https://creativecommons.org/%20projects/founderscopyright
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...
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.
SJ
On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com 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.
Richard Stallman thinks five years (Swedish Pirate Party) is too short:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
- though he likes ten years:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
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.
Founders' Copyright has no buy-in on Commons, which would have been a nice place to start. Offering yet another licence option strikes me as less than ideal ...
But yeah. I'm now envisioning a Hollywood op-ed desperately trying to defend the notion of a whole fourteen years for copyright.
- d.
2012/5/21 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com 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.
Richard Stallman thinks five years (Swedish Pirate Party) is too short:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pirate-party.html
- though he likes ten years:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
Two gemstones, thanks for poiting those out.
Cristian
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard writes:
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.
I think we're unnecessarily conflating the question of whether authors should enjoy exclusive control of their work with the related but distinct question of whether authors should receive credit for their work. It's perfectly possible for people who are in perfect agreement on the first issue to disagree on the second; and I think that, in practical terms, legitimate reuse of cultural works (of the sort that is of interest to the Wikimedia movement) is unlikely to be stifled by an attribution requirement along the lines of CC-by or similar licenses.
Kirill
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
legitimate reuse of cultural works (of the sort that is of interest to the Wikimedia movement) is unlikely to be stifled by an attribution requirement along the lines of CC-by or similar licenses.
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?
On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta.sj@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.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta.sj@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.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@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.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer ml@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 dgerard@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
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 ml@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.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer ml@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.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@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.herbert@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.
On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Well, actually it was for the benefit of printers. As is reflected in copyright today, which is for the benefit of publishers.
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.
I think this is a straw man rendering of the position, but I do think that forcibly tearing down the whole edifice would be a vast improvement in the world.
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. 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.
That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.
- d.
On 23 May 2012 08:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.
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.
* 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.
2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.net:
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.
Yes. Very much so.
//Johan Jönsson -- http://johanjonsson.net/wikipedia
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Johan Jönsson brevlistor@gmail.com wrote:
2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi@gmx.net:
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.
Yes. Very much so.
I agree. What problems does Wikipedia face? Some of the Wikipedia, and other projects, allow non-free media where they are necessary to support the goals of the project. Some projects don't allow non-free media, but most of our mission can be adequately achieved with plain text, and should be obtained in pure text in order to meet the needs of people with vision impairments that mean they can't see images.
A limit on copyright increases our pool of resources at some point in the future (5 years, 14 years, etc) as no government will attempt to push existing works into the public domain by having a retroactive new copyright duration.
My bet is that our firm commitment to CC-BY-SA will mean that the copyright landscape will be quite different in 14 years.
If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from being enriched. We could list all of the works which would be public domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.
-- John Vandenberg
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 jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from being enriched. We could list all of the works which would be public domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.
-- John Vandenberg
People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence. Most people dont care about copyright. Most people do have kids and do know who Mickey Mouse is. Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his protectors and the world will listen.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Amory Meltzer amorymeltzer@gmail.com wrote:
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 jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to redefine January 1 as (Anti-)Mickey Mouse Day, and promote it as the day that Mickey Mouse Act / Disney has prevented the commons from being enriched. We could list all of the works which would be public domain in the US if Mickey Mouse had never existed.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence. Most people dont care about copyright. Most people do have kids and do know who Mickey Mouse is. Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his protectors and the world will listen.
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.
On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence. Most people dont care about copyright. Most people do have kids and do know who Mickey Mouse is. Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his protectors and the world will listen.
However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are for other reasons.
That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So that is actually the reason.
- d.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence. Most people dont care about copyright. Most people do have kids and do know who Mickey Mouse is. Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his protectors and the world will listen.
However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are for other reasons.
That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So that is actually the reason.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Doesn't matter the nation, David. Nobody cares[1].
1. < http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares >
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
People dont care about Sonny Bono, so it wont get any prominence. Most people dont care about copyright. Most people do have kids and do know who Mickey Mouse is. Tar Mickey Mouse with the actions of his protectors and the world will listen.
However for most of the world their copyright terms are as they are for other reasons.
That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So that is actually the reason.
- d.
Non-sarcastic reply, it's not about the US or harmony. It's about understanding, and the expectations of understanding international copyright law through the web is a high specialized skill not even really developed. We have regular copyright complaints to Wikimedia sites from people that lack a general understanding of the national and international copyright rights. Often times these are questions that no lawyer I know can genuinely answer, because there isn't one for their particular country. We just have to wing it and explain what we know.
On 23 May 2012 08:21, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That is, of course, not the case: the US raises the term then works very hard to get its copyright laws "harmonised" internationally. So that is actually the reason.
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)
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.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
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.
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
On 28 May 2012 22:37, John Vandenberg jayvdb@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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org