Talk:EU policy/IPRED Consultation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Background[edit]

Is there any meaningful difference in the questions compared to the 2 previous consultations which touched this topic? Nemo 07:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

From [1] it seems not much, except perhaps some interest in altering some courts. Are we strong enough in supporting the publication of all judgements? Nemo 16:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

I've read the draft and did some minor copy-editing. The questions seem very uninteresting... Some topics which are important for us but aren't really covered and for which we should find some place somewhere:

  • large-scale copyfraud which generates diffuse harm and concentrated profits can't be countered by private lawsuits (e.g. the abuses of the public domain);
  • moral rights and small authors who earn little or nothing from their works have no defenders (e.g. when someone abuses free content from Wikimedia projects, or even performs plain and brutal plagiarism, any license enforcement effort is hard and outright impossible without a delegation from the actual copyright holder);
  • abuse of copyright etc. enforcement by collecting societies against they right-holders' interest, either without logic or for their own profit (in Italy with SIAE this happens a lot);
  • lack of education on modern copyright frameworks such as Creative Commons licenses (even in big publishers) produces unnecessary conflicts and litigation;
  • competitive advantage of services in better-regulated contexts (e.g. archive.org or Canadian, South-American or Russian services are preferred to our wikis due to more flexible enforcement);
  • probably more.

Nemo 16:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)