[Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright

[Samuel Klein]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266