On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 16:30 +0100, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Andrew Turvey > <andrewrtur...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > Peter Mandelson is a keynote speaker, which could be an important > > opportunity to put the case for public > > domain to a key decision maker. > > > > My question: what should I focus on at this conference and what should I > > aim to get out of it? > > Shoot Peter Mandelson in the head at point blank range wearing a > Wikimedia UK bandana and shout "INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEEE!" > > I expect that would get the odd headline here and there. A bit of > publicity for us. > > If you're not keen on a lengthy prison sentence a decent kick in the > balls should get us at least onto page four or five.
This may not be a professional approach to Peter Mandelson, but WMUK simply lacks the funds to hire a professional hitman. :-P Can't abolish the *unaccountable* Lords fast enough for me. Although I'm none too happy about rumours the Dark Lord may be exiting that chamber to stand in a safe Labour seat. What is, actually, conspicuously absent from the discussion is whether anyone has a *right* to make a profit on these creative works. Copyright is a social contract; society grants a work's creator(s) a limited duration monopoly to allow them the *opportunity* to make a profit. Arstechnica has a good article relating to this today. Those well-entrenched and profiting from creative works have a 100+ year history of scaremongering and depriving the public domain what they agreed to give it in the first place. -- Brian McNeil <brian.mcn...@wikinewsie.org> Wikinewsie.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
