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

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at 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 at 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