[okfn-discuss] CC and copyright reform

Wed Oct 30 19:56:18 UTC 2013

agree with you, but could we please start a new thread on what we as a community want from copyright reform (an important subject) instead of continuing the thread of “CC and copyright reform” (unless, of course, others want to continue discussing CC’s role in copyright reform)

------------------------------------------------------From: David Hirst David Hirst
Reply: david at davidhirst.com david at davidhirst.com, Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Date: October 30, 2013 at 12:33:17 PM
To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
Subject:  Re: [okfn-discuss] CC and copyright reform  

>
>Copyright is an important feature of copyleft, so I would not wish to see it
>abolished entirely.
>
>Patents last 20 years (after what becomes a substantial fee). Mostly,
>anything after 20 years is discounted out by investors (even blockbuster
>movie investors). Originally, I think it was 7 years, then 14, and I would
>be comfortable with this or 21.
>
>But you would have a big battle with the rent seeking corporations who have
>inherited a legacy they can milk - at least for as long as they can bribe
>legislatures. Outbribing them would be prohibitively expensive, so the case
>has to be an ethical / political one.
>
>Cheers
>
>D
>
>David Hirst
>
>Mobile: +44 7831 405443
>
>
>
>From: okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org
>[mailto:okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Wolf
>Sent: 30 October 2013 17:07
>To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
>Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] CC and copyright reform
>
>
>
>Copyright shouldn't exist at all, but if we want to push for a lowered time,
>it should not be pegged to one's death, it should be a set time. Otherwise,
>it provides perverse incentives around people dying.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Aaron Wolf
>wolftune.com  
>
>
>
>On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Mark Wainwright  
>wrote:
>
>The statement doesn't mention the aspect in most pressing need of
>reform, which is the preposterous 70-year term of copyright after the
>death of the author. What is the purpose of copyright? If it's to
>protect an artist's livelihood, artistic integrity, etc, there is no
>need for it to last five minutes after her death. I can see a weak
>argument for extending it for a few years to protect dependents (will
>someone please think of the children ...), not that the dependents of
>doctors or builders or plumbers have the same luxury, but anyway, that
>would justify 10 years, not 70 by which time the artist's children are
>probably dead of old age.
>
>To me this is an indication that copyright policy has been captured by
>corporate interests and is not made in the best interests of society
>at large. Thoughts?
>
>Mark
>
>
>On 16/10/2013, Timothy Vollmer wrote:
>> FYI - CC community issues policy statement in support of fundamental
>> copyright reform
>>
>> Blog post: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39639
>>
>> Direct link to statement: https://creativecommons.org/about/reform
>>
>