[Wikimedia-l] next Wikidata office hours
Heya folks, I just wanted to let you know that the next Wikidata office hours will be on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Denny and I will be around on IRC in #wikimedia-wikidata to answer any question you might have and discuss. I assume there will be a few more questions than usual now that we have a demo system. Logs will be published afterwards. English: May 29 at 16:30 UTC (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16min=30sec=0day=29month=05year=2012) German: May 30 at 16:30 UTC (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16min=30sec=0day=30month=05year=2012) Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study: http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ 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. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
2012/5/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: From Rick Falkvinge, an English-language writeup of a Swedish study: http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/21/study-despite-tougher-copyright-monopoly-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@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-laws-sharing-remains-pervasive/ 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. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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 m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing 2 Community Fellow
Thank you Siko for answering. That's a mix of curiosity (for the benefits, pensions and so on) and of concern (on the responsibility side of things). Wikimedia France received several legal complaints in the past few years and the frequency is increasing. The inventivity and the boldness of lawyers is also getting stronger in trying to prove that the chapter is legally responsible for what happen on the French speaking Wikipedia. We also had to deal with a volunteer contributor who was taken to court for a very regular wiki activity (thank god, ended well). In short, we can not pretend there is no legal risk. Aside from this, professionnally speaking, I am a freelancer. I pay roughly 1000 euros every year in various insurance to cover my activity. Covering any wrong recommandation I may give my clients. Covering any material disaster I might create in their office (such as leaking coffee on one of their laptop... or worse). Covering legal support for me in case I am brought to court. If I did not pay for such insurance, I would be 100% responsible on my own revenue and property (my house and so on). If I were on staff in a company, the company would cover this (to a certain extent of course). So I am being curious about the status of the fellows. If they do anything illegal (voluntarily or not) and are taken to court... are they on their own ? (hopefully WMF would help them pay the fees). Or would it be WMF considered responsible as their employer ? Florence On 5/21/12 8:09 PM, Richard Symonds wrote: I must admit to being curious, as do at least two others i've spoken to about this. With no benefits and no pensions, and what seems like hazy employment rights that vary from state to state (not to mention fellows from overseas) and person to person, this does seem a little odd. How much notice are they given, and what support they are entitled to from the WMF, would be very helpful. I'd appreciate a more technical explanation so I can understand how the WMF deals with people on these short term contracts. :-) Richard Symonds On May 21, 2012 6:35 PM, Siko Boutersesboute...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Florence, I guess I didn't do a very good job addressing these questions in the earlier thread, so I'll try one more time :-) Fellowships are temporary roles, so they are not treated as full time staff positions. They do not receive retirement benefits, and generally the paperwork setup and associated benefits is not like staff, its more like contractor, though again the specifics will vary according to fellowship location, duration, and what US regulation dictates based on these variables. I am happily ignorant of the liability/insurance side of things, so perhaps someone from the LCA team can address this if needed. Is there a particular issue that makes you ask about this, or just generally curious? Best wishes, Siko -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 23:29:51 +0200 From: Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcing 2 Community Fellows Message-ID:jpbnof$8vl$2...@dough.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed I can not help (I am optimistic with lot's of faith :)) Does the fellowship status implies that the WMF pays for health or retirement benefits (as it would for a staff member) or does the fellow receive a lump sum and manages by himself to pay for taxes and benefits depending on the country he lives in (as would a contractor) ? Does the fellowship status implies that, should the fellow get in trouble, he would be considered staff (in terms of liability) or is he on his own ? (which in my terms would be if as staff, he is covered by WMF insurance versus if as contractor, he has to pay insurance by himself). Florence -- Siko Bouterse Head of Community Fellowships Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org ___ 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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.symo...@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 m...@gondwanaland.com wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard dger...@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 -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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...@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 dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein meta...@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 -- Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain) Projects: AVBOT http://code.google.com/p/avbot/ | StatMediaWikihttp://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es | WikiEvidens http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/ | WikiPapershttp://wikipapers.referata.com | WikiTeam http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/ Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta...@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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@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...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer m...@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 dger...@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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein meta...@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. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
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 m...@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. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Study: Nobody cares about your copyright
* 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. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
