copyright is fundamentally different from patents, let's just talk about copyright

The problem with a 'short commercial monopoly' is that it's difficult to enforce that shortness. as soon as you give them an inch, this is what happens. now patents and copyrights last over a hundred years AFTER the original creator's death.

Or we go too far with our reforms, lose the masses and then industry idiots are controlling legislation again. I think that keeping an eye on them is good enough and this is more beneficial to the artists.

fair enough. i realize we need to be very gradual, but this does not mean that our intentions need not be clear.

we gain the masses though educating the public, remember the way this country works a small number of dedicated NRA members can affect gun legislation more then the majority of the country for whom it's a minor issue
my point is, it's more effective to have a smaller number of "radicals" then to have a larger number of people who are less dedicated

I remain unconvinced that eradicating copyright, eventually or otherwise, is a good thing.

A valid point kbenjamin but I do not see it's relevance.

which are we discussing?
whether or not getting rid of copyright is a good ultimate goal
or
whether copyright abolition is a good policy for gaining momentum
they are two separate discussions and my point is relevant to the latter, it was a counter to Amanda Johnson's "Or we go too far with our reforms..." which is on the same topic

This conversation is confusing me.

Why do we need to get rid of copyright completely. Why is a five year limit not good enough?

because we support free speech, and copyright is censorship
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship

you think preventing sharing is a way to encourage sharing? somehow that seems backwards
why is potential recognition and donations/alternate sources of funding not a good enough incentive?

What I want doesn't prevent sharing so I think you are confused. I've said there needs to be a non-commercial uses exception. Commercial uses are not sharing.

Opposing censorship, just because it is censorship, is silly so I will not even entertain that logic.

you think preventing copying is a way to encourage sharing? somehow that still seems backwards
can you point to any data that show copyright encourages "sharing"?

ksc: she refers to a more systemic monetary incentive to create. speaking as a writer and musician, money is not why i write or compose. i do it because i want to share myself with others. money is merely for subsistence, which i personally do not need. i have money, my family has money, and i am smart enough that i do not need to make music and novels my profession. i am a businessman by trade.

Alex: I'm glad that is true for you but I do not think it is a good model for copyright. Think about how scientific progress was when scientists were stealing each others and hiding their works.

Kbenjamin: i said I said I supported non-commercial sharing so I have no idea what you mean.

Opposing censorship, just because it is censorship, is silly.

i think it's too early for this proposal, we need to discuss more

I agree with kbenjamin.

that is a good question, personally i would support either

You would support abolishing droit morale?

maybe we should have a mumble debate on copyright abolition vs reform

AJ i'm pretty neutral about it.

What is harmful about what commercial copyright is like now.

wtf is 'droit morale'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

o.O

I'm absolutely shocked that no one wants to protect the artist and would completely get rid of IP protection.

I feel like I am flip flopping all over.. I haven't been thinking straight today, but I believe that concerns over protecting the artist must be resolved, and this is just plain, outright abolition. Nothing else.

Protections for artists after the fact is an abuse and has unacceptable privacy and human rights implications in terms of enforcement.

It is not the place of the state to baby artists. Speaking as an author and musician, I do not need the State to baby me. I expect other artists to put on their big girl panties and stop whining.

If you want to see valid confirmation of acknowledgement of artist status, give me a month or two to clean up a short story and have it published in a magazine or anthology, and sell some music on bandcamp.

Then..

Come at me, bros.

To clarify... I was thinking that It could be addressed later... but the attitudes of others seem to make it appear like they don't really care much about these issues. So I don't completely trust that they will.

Ive been looking at this through too narrow a scope. :/

Okay, so how does the IRC conversation now affect this?

Commercial exploitation is a good enough justification to me to keep minimal copyright protections. So long as noncommercial and very broad fair use sharing and remixing is explicitly protected, I am fine will keeping a heavily reformed copyright protection infrastructure.

I accept that.

Perhaps this needs more debate before going to a vote?

There is nothing that says we cannot have a commons or public domain. Remember, we're going to at the very least HEAVILY hack and chop down copyright, if not outright abolish it. With very aggressive and furious reform and limitation, you will have explicit protections for a creative commons and public domain DIRECTLY IN COPYRIGHT LAW, rather than using some HACK like the WTFPL or CC-Zero

I think it is very important to keep in mind that it is entirely possible to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial when crafting copyright legislation. We can protect artists and promote open culture. Who can view and share something is different from who can sell something.

I will make a note here. I would personally prefer abolishing copyright, and use a different, separate system for protecting creators from commercial exploitation and fraud.

However, this is not Burger King. I cannot always have it my way.

I disagree with the idea that we need to strategically support copyright, i think this will make abolition hard over the long term.

Whatever we spend a lot of energy telling the public, the public will eventually become passionate about.
If the public becomes passionate about reform then we will have a hard time convincing them about abolition.

i don't believe it's harder to convince someone who hasn't thought about it that reform makes sense then to convince them abolition does

LN: I think you can work around that though. Copyright should only effect commercial activities so general speech and education would not be affected by copyright. I think the suppression issue is with our current system rather than giving artists rights over their work.

Alex: I really think copyright means what we make it mean. We could easily come up with an alternative system and simply call it copyright. Copyright is based on "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" this is very malleable if you think creatively.

No, it needs to serve its original constitutional, purpose, protecting authors and scientists. What we need is to put serious limits on it. One of them should be it should not be transferable. Another aspect that the actual artist/scientist/engineer has rights even if he works for a company. All agreements to the contrary shall be null and void.

Should I extend the closing date another day or two to give more time for discussion and voting for those who have not decided?

@nicholasdesalvio I would say so, yes.

I would like those who support this decision to discuss it more with the yesers since they are in the minority.

i think discussion is important, but this particular poll is premature, we should close it and do another later

Why is this poll premature? We can just push back the 'due date' until we are satisfied and people can still change their votes. I see no reason to close it and I think that people are getting closer to an accord.

Just keep trying to convince people why they should vote yes instead of talking about why it is premature.

@zacqaryadamgreen isn't that a discussion for another day?
wouldn't you rather the govt do nothing on that front and abolish copyright then not?

Okay, changing my position to yes to appease the Internet Pie Chart Gods.

For the record, you guys, these polls are Internet pie charts. "If outcome is NO, a proposal for reformation shall follow." Oh really? You mean all the people who voted No aren't allowed to just write their own proposal anyway, because the Magical Pie Chart forbids it? Or vice versa with the people voting Yes?

No, @kbenjaminsauerhaft, it's not a discussion for another day because this is a discussion forum. These votes are even more non-binding than UN resolutions. We can, and should, discuss whatever we want, whenever the hell we want.

I suppose it's a problem with the Loomio software that the only polls we can take have to be "proposals" and not "temperature checks." But let's keep the meaning of votes in perspective.

Speaking of discussion! @nicholasdesalvio @benjaminlyon Please elaborate on why you think copyright abolition is inadequate to protect creative people, and what we could possibly do instead/in addition?

Loomio's design philosophy comes from the Occupy movement, and in Occupy groups, a "no" vote means "I have a concern that needs to be addressed, here's what it is so we can talk about it." A "no" means "I cannot say yes YET, let's modify the proposal so that I can."

I know the Pirate Party is not Occupy and blah blah blah but that's still a good way of doing things.

So bored.