I think "theft" is too loaded a word. How about "Depriving the public domain of culturally significant material"?

On 20/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: The wikimedia foundation is not however a digital rights organization and doesn't really have a mandate to be one. The foundation is more in the position of an interested party than a campaigning organization. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 20/02/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: The wikimedia foundation is not however a digital rights organization and doesn't really have a mandate to be one. The foundation is more in the position of an interested party than a campaigning organization.

In copyright debates we already have a complicated situation with some groups calling themselves pirates (in Sweden: the Pirate Bay, the Piracy Bureau, the Pirate Party). I'd prefer to stay out of that camp, and keep talking about "free knowledge", "free culture", and "free software" rather than piracy and theft.

On 20/02/2008, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote: "theft of the public domain" is a phrase that ties in with the campaigns of various digital rights organisations fighting against the same copyright extension in the EU.

I wonder, would the phrasing "not in the interests of the public that EU institutions are supposed to serve and represent" be appropriate? In any case, based on the discussion I think it is time someone else had a go at drafting the resolution - including both the Wikipedia aspect and the "not in the public interest" issue. We need something to go to Mike for final tweaks and presentation to the board. It isn't going to go through in time to give to the EFF tomorrow but I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that the overwhelming consensus of Wikimedians is that the proposal is a bad idea. Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lars Aronsson Sent: 21 February 2008 10:39 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF/EFF and Copyright extension daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote: I agree. I think what we have to make clear is that there is a public interest on the far side of copyright expiration. Most new legislation is written by asking for input from all interested parties, involving both sides in any conflict. But for copyright law this has traditionally meant both publishers and authors, or both record companies and artists. Both sides have agreed that more protection and longer expiration times is better. For example when life+50 was changed to life+70, this was only described as an improvement. The people who disagree, that is we, the users of public domain material, have not been asked. Of course, both shopowners and shoplifters are not involved in drafting anti-theft legislation. So what we have to make clear is that we represent a public interest that is not only huge, but also legitimate. In countries (such as Scotland and Scandinavia) where you have [[freedom to roam]], this is certainly against the interest of land owners, but on the other side of the negotiation table are hiking societies, such as [[sv:Svenska Turistföreningen]] with 300,000 members or 3 percent of the total population of Sweden. Wikimedia Sverige is 122 years younger and has only 100 members, so still needs to recruit 299,900 more. -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

TBH, I'm tired of sitting around and not acting on a problem, so I did act. And I hope it will be in a big way. I've launched my own petition against the EU's actions over at Veropedia. If anyone cares to take a look and/or sign (preferably sign, we want to make this a strong message to the EU), the URL is as follows: http://petition.veropedia.com/

We therefore call on Commissioner Charlie McCreevey of the European Union to reconsider the extension of copyright protection for performers

Chad wrote: > TBH, I'm tired of sitting around and not acting on a problem, so I did

> And I hope it will be in a big way. I've launched my own petition

> the EU's actions over at Veropedia. If anyone cares to take a look

> sign (preferably sign, we want to make this a strong message to the

It's too late, but I think that this may be too weak: > We therefore call on Commissioner Charlie McCreevey of the European > Union to reconsider the extension of copyright protection for

So, he may reconsider it but do it anyway. Or extend "only" to 70 years. No, this needs to be stopped. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Chad, I think your wording is remarkably eloquent for someone who claims not to be a writer. Of course, we could argue here on-list for the next week or so about the wording - or we could get off our butts and promote the petition. I've already printed the front page of the petition out to take along with me to the EFF offices in Brussels tomorrow. As long as you can avoid accusations of spamming I'd suggest posting this on the Village Pump of Wikipedia. Perhaps prior to that you need to put the petition into context and detail what the current and proposed copyright terms are. I've already signed the petition and wish you the best of luck in promoting it. I intend to see it included in the Wikinews article we do tomorrow/Saturday following our meeting with the EFF. Let's see you get this up on Slashdot and other techie sites where there is a pro-open licensing and public domain sentiment, let's show the EU that we can outdo the Muslim community when it comes to getting signatures on a petition. :-P [Aside, I note already signatures from new EU member states such as Poland, with Wikinews Poland being quite an active site I'll be watching for their contributors turning up in IRC and asking them to sign and help you out with translations. The ideal is to have this in every language used within the EU. This was exactly what I wanted WMF to do but was misinterpreted as wanting some bizarre extension to MediaWiki.] Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chad Sent: 21 February 2008 16:22 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF/EFF and Copyright extension I see your point. Do you have a suggested rewording? I'm more than open to ideas, I'm not a writer :-) Thanks, Chad On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.yu> wrote: act. against and/or EU), performers _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l