Proposal talk:Nonfree media vault or time capsule

Bad proposal. Horrid grammar. A'int? --TheGrandAmanin 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

I haven't read the details, so I may not approve everything you have written, but your idea is similar to what I suggested on Commons : create categories like

Commons:Category:Undelete in 2013

for contents which will become free on January 1st 2013. Teofilo 09:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea

As ideas go this is great! This may work out very well in practice. - Brya 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a great idea. Padraic 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. I'm not sure it would be legal, but even if it is I foresee far too much information being uploaded to a) store without a vast investment in technology and b) to monitor to see if users have correctly tagged them as regards date they enter the public domain. I do have sympathy with the aims of the proposal but I don't think it should be a priority for Wikimedia. --Bodnotbod 18:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reason do you have to think that this might not be legal? If a bricks-and-mortar library can contain a paper copy of a nonfree book that anyone can come in and read, or a music CD that anyone can come in and listen to, or a DVD or other video media that anyone can come in and watch, how could it possibly be illegal to hold a copy of a book and not let anyone read it?

I think you're being a bit too enthusiastic in interpreting the hopes and dreams of the copyright industry. We aren't quite at the period in history yet where you need a government license to run a private library, especially one that doesn't allow anyone to read its books. And hopefully we never will reach that point.

Feel free to revert me but I'm going to remove the "Is it legal?" question for now. --Struthious Bandersnatch 04:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, as far as the "vast investment in technology": in case you haven't taken a thorough look through Wikimedia Commons, we are already doing this kind of thing. People can basically upload all their crappy vacation photos to Commons or a picture of their penis, up to 20 megs in size for each image, and they definitely take advantage of this already. The technology problems have already been solved; this would be a 2nd chance to reuse and leverage that organizational expertise. --Struthious Bandersnatch 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my response in the article helped, I'm on my way to bed and a bit woozy. --Struthious Bandersnatch 19:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]