Talk:Intellectual Property Office Consultation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Suggested Additions: new section) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
I don't know who Brewster Kahle is. And I am sure that some civil servants are also ignorant of that particular detail. Make the point clear without using deep domain knowledge and experience. This is a '''first consultation''', and the questions posed are quite broad. [[User:LoopZilla|LoopZilla]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC) | I don't know who Brewster Kahle is. And I am sure that some civil servants are also ignorant of that particular detail. Make the point clear without using deep domain knowledge and experience. This is a '''first consultation''', and the questions posed are quite broad. [[User:LoopZilla|LoopZilla]] ([[User talk:LoopZilla|talk]]) 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Suggested Additions == | |||
To point #1, at the end (which clarifies our position): | |||
: For a free content movement, like ourselves, this is not a reasonable option. By allowing older orphan works to go out of copyright they could be hosted within the free content movement, for the common good. Leaving them in a state of limbo risks the works becoming unobtainable in future. | |||
Adding more as I go... --[[User:ErrantX|ErrantX]] ([[User talk:ErrantX|talk]]) 12:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:00, 21 March 2012
I have to assume that we are all happy. Well done Tom for such good contributions.
If nothing by 12 I will send. (these things inevitably take some time )
Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- At the moment, the text is setting out ideas of things that could be commented on, but doesn't focus on actually commenting on them. So it would need rewriting and expanding before it is submitted. Mike Peel (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Context
Commercial use, it could potentially turn a profit, although hardly one that's going to make Brewster Kahle into Bill Gates.)
I don't know who Brewster Kahle is. And I am sure that some civil servants are also ignorant of that particular detail. Make the point clear without using deep domain knowledge and experience. This is a first consultation, and the questions posed are quite broad. LoopZilla (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggested Additions
To point #1, at the end (which clarifies our position):
- For a free content movement, like ourselves, this is not a reasonable option. By allowing older orphan works to go out of copyright they could be hosted within the free content movement, for the common good. Leaving them in a state of limbo risks the works becoming unobtainable in future.
Adding more as I go... --ErrantX (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)