On 28 May 2012 22:37, John Vandenberg 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 Wikipedi
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Andrew Gray 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
2012/5/21 David Gerard :
> On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein 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 shoul
On 23 May 2012 08:46, David Gerard 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 p
On 23 May 2012 08:21, David Gerard 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
On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert 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, wh
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:33 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>
>
> 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 wo
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Linksvayer 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
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg 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 kn
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni wrote:
> > On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg 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 kn
On 23 May 2012 08:16, geni wrote:
> On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg 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
On 23 May 2012 01:37, John Vandenberg 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.
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 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 wrote:
>
> If we want to have an extra impact, I think we should campaign to
> redefine
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Johan Jönsson wrote:
> 2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann :
>
>> 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 Wikipe
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin
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.
bu
2012/5/22 Bjoern Hoehrmann :
> 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",
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Samuel Klein 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
* 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 beyo
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 san
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein 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
On 21 May 2012 20:59, Samuel Klein 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 awa
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, emijrp 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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Richard Symonds
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
On 21 May 2012 20:30, Samuel Klein 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]
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
> 14 years is a fine place to start. Are there any existing campaigns
> pushing for it? S.
>
> On Mon, May 21
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
wrote:
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 wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think the right term here is "0 years". It is also not "life
>> + 70". Perhaps "7 + 7".
>
>
> I
On 21 May 2012 18:59, Samuel Klein 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 (Copyri
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni wrote:
>> On 21 May 2012 13:09, 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.
I
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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, geni wrote:
> On 21 May 2012 13:09, 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.
>
> The most pirated bit of content at the moment appears to be ga
On 5/21/12 9:31 AM, geni wrote:
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard 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-tro
On 21 May 2012 13:09, David Gerard 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
2012/5/21 David Gerard :
> 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%
35 matches
Mail list logo
