Talk:Intellectual Property Office Consultation

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)

New intro

Added from our wiki. Thanks for all the suggestions. Will attempt to paste into the counsultation documents along with 113 'Not applicable's later! Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)