On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert <[email protected]> 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, which is for the benefit of publishers. > Free content and culture and information - > Wikipedia included - is great. I don't see any need to forcibly tear > down the whole edifice of commercial paid arts in the process. I think this is a straw man rendering of the position, but I do think that forcibly tearing down the whole edifice would be a vast improvement in the world. > In particular, the public has no problem with individual musicians and > writers being rewarded for their efforts. Trying to overcome that > would mean making enemies out of most of the populace on this when we > don't have to. > 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 works for everyone except > insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I > feel little remaining sympathy for. 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. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
