The worst thread

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't think it's a sin to pay for Discordian diarrhea, after all, I paid for three copies of the principia discordia, the original Discordian diarrhea.

I don't think its a sin, I would just have been disappointed to purchase Intermittens as a magazine... its a great free zine, its not a great publication for sale... in my opinion.

Ok... so, I'm wondering... What are the "Rights" involved here?

"legally", or whatever you want to call it, it's a creative commons kopyleft work, and it free to distribute and produce.

Now, anyone that produces this work and then wants to trade/sell/give away it can do that, and the next person who trades/buys/received the work gets all the same rights as the first person, correct?

Or are they bound by some sort of legal contract that they can't make a profit off other peoples work even if its free for everyone to do with what they want?

Or have I missed something entirely here?

Nope, as far as I can tell, that's where we are. Kopyleft material, based on the preexisting examples, appears to be free to trade/sell/give away and all of the rights go along with it. There is no legal contract or anything else. In fact, I'd say the situation is very similar to the GPL in this case.

With the GPL, all of us may contribute code to a project. Anyone can make use of that code for the project, or another project. Any of this code can be freely distributed (as long as its under the GPL) and it can be sold (as long as its under the GPL). I think Kopyleft is probably similar. Anyone could take anything kopyleft and put it in any publication. That publication could be given away, or sold as long as the material remained Kopyleft. The person who bought the book could then turn around and take chunks of it, make their own publication and sell it too etc etc etc

Personally, I think we should remain focused on producing Issues for digital release. Once we have some idea of how many readers, etc maybe we could consider publishing them through an on-demand printer etc. I think worrying about money and paper publication now may be a distraction that will slow down production.

In the end, for me, it boils down to what the hell I'm doing here. Do I participate in GASMS or Intermittens to make a buck, or do I do it for fun. For me, I do it for fun, so all the stuff I volunteer here, is for fun. Now, I'm also interested in being a writer and making money so I can leave Corporate Hell. For me, though, I try to keep these two things separate. Something here might inspire something I think is worth money... but in that case, I don't publish it here.

It makes sense that if cain does not want his material distributed for a profit (or without him having a cut) then that should be edited from whichever issue is being sold. Its his right as a contributer not to to do as he pleases with his material.
It would be really shit if this caused problems down the line for intermittens (as group activities involving any money at all always do) and I really don't want something like this to drive away cain.

I think that certianly would be the nice thing to do. I do think, however, that we should all keep in mind the potency of Kopyleft and what it really means. At this point, anyone could reproduce Cain's works from an existing issue of Intermittens and sell it and never tell him... you can't un-public domain content. However, since we all have to deal with each other, I personally would try to honor any request from any contributor if I were gonna sell Intermittens Issues.

All in all though, we should probably come to some sort of consensus about what is and isn't cool for Intermittens as a project. Also, if you want to control what you author... do not release it under Public Domain... or Kopyleft.

EDIT: One option we could consider is either a copyright, Public Domain or Kopyleft note at the bottom of each article in a given issue. With that in place, any copyright material would be subject to whatever agreements there were around Intermittens.

Personally, I'd just as soon continue with Kopyleft/Free and focus on writing interesting stuff that spags will read 5 years from now or 50 years from now and say "Oh, so thats what some Discordians were thinking in 2010".

[Faust]

as said earlier, any issue that the editor would like to sell should be stated before the issue is even started.

[Cramulus]

My intent ITT was to discuss these issues and put the cards on the table. I expected that money would be a touchy issue, but I did not anticipate any of my friends cursing me out for bringing it up. So far, no money has changed hands, so nobody has gotten screwed. I would love to talk this rational and calmly. We will not arrive at ANY solution otherwise.

as I said - "Nobody wants to feel screwed. Nobody is trying to screw anybody else. Many of us are poor. Some of us are entrepeneurs. I don't have all the answers, but there's gotta be a way for us to reach a good model. We're making this up as we go along."

For the record, it's never been my intention to sell anybody's work if it would piss them off. Telarus and I started to format IM for magcloud.com, but have been too distracted to really get it set up. Just so it doesn't seem like I'm keeping secrets, when we approached that hurdle, I was going to contact all the writers and make sure stuff was cool. I don't have a problem AT ALL with sending people some cash if I'm going to be making cash.

Anyway--

I think most of our dissonance is stemming from the lack of initial copyright agreements. Are writers submitting stuff under a Noncommerical license? Share alike? Public Domain? Attribution? If each editor had declared license at the outset, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Many people have marked their work as Kopyleft, but this is clearly not adequate (in fact - we probably shouldn't even use that word anymore because it has caused so much trouble). Moving forward, editors will have to be explicit about the issue's license: copyright, some form of creative-commons, or public domain.

In my opinion, the editor should make the ultimate decision what the issue's license will be. If the writers aren't comfortable with that license, they shouldn't submit to that issue. If the editor is profiting, I expect some of the writers will want a slice and they can work it out in private. The details would be established on an issue-by-issue basis. Content which is under a different license than the rest of the issue should be marked (like if you copyright your issue but some of the art is still in the public domain)

[bds]

In my opinion, the editor should make the ultimate decision what the issue's license will be. If the writers aren't comfortable with that license, they shouldn't submit to that issue. If the editor is profiting, I expect some of the writers will want a slice and they can work it out in private. The details would be established on an issue-by-issue basis. Content which is under a different license than the rest of the issue should be marked (like if you copyright your issue but some of the art is still in the public domain)

Correct fucking motorcycle, as far as I'm concerned.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

as said earlier, any issue that the editor would like to sell should be stated before the issue is even started.

Absolutely.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

My intent ITT was to discuss these issues and put the cards on the table. I expected that money would be a touchy issue, but I did not anticipate any of my friends cursing me out for bringing it up. So far, no money has changed hands, so nobody has gotten screwed. I would love to talk this rational and calmly. We will not arrive at ANY solution otherwise.

as I said - "Nobody wants to feel screwed. Nobody is trying to screw anybody else. Many of us are poor. Some of us are entrepeneurs. I don't have all the answers, but there's gotta be a way for us to reach a good model. We're making this up as we go along."

For the record, it's never been my intention to sell anybody's work if it would piss them off. Telarus and I started to format IM for magcloud.com, but have been too distracted to really get it set up. Just so it doesn't seem like I'm keeping secrets, when we approached that hurdle, I was going to contact all the writers and make sure stuff was cool. I don't have a problem AT ALL with sending people some cash if I'm going to be making cash.

Anyway--

I think most of our dissonance is stemming from the lack of initial copyright agreements. Are writers submitting stuff under a Noncommerical license? Share alike? Public Domain? Attribution? If each editor had declared license at the outset, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Many people have marked their work as Kopyleft, but this is clearly not adequate (in fact - we probably shouldn't even use that word anymore because it has caused so much trouble). Moving forward, editors will have to be explicit about the issue's license: copyright, some form of creative-commons, or public domain.

In my opinion, the editor should make the ultimate decision what the issue's license will be. If the writers aren't comfortable with that license, they shouldn't submit to that issue. If the editor is profiting, I expect some of the writers will want a slice and they can work it out in private. The details would be established on an issue-by-issue basis. Content which is under a different license than the rest of the issue should be marked (like if you copyright your issue but some of the art is still in the public domain)

That's one way to try it, but if every issue is under a different license I can see things getting really bizarre at some point in the future. Further, and this is digging into Copyright memory so bear with me, I think  there are two different copyright issues here.

1. What is piece of content X licensed under (Copyright, Kopyleft, Public Domain) ?
2. What is Intermittensⁿ licensed under (Copyright, Kopyleft, Public Domain) ?

So, lets say that Nigel and P3nt and I submit content for Cram's next issue, P3nt used Creative Commons, Nigel used Kopyleft and I released under Public Domain. Cramulus though, still has to figure out how to license HIS work... the Issue of Intermittens with the content layout etc. Cram could copyright the Issue, but anyone could still use the content created by P3nt, Nigel and I under the license that they were released with. I think the only possibility of contention is if some material is Copyright and The Editor wants to make a profit and the Copyright holder wants a cut. In short, authors should place their work under the license that most closely aligns with their philosophy and desires re the content. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR CONTENT, copyright it. That makes this a lot easier.

This means that the editor of any given issue has full control over the issue (copyright) and can sell it. IF some content is listed as Copyright and the editor chose to use it, it would be the editor's responsibility to get permission for selling Copyright content. If the content is Creative Commons, Kopyleft etc. the the Author has waived their right to have any say in the matter.

This makes the whole thing quite simple. If we all specify our license preference as authors, then editors will KNOW what they can and can't do with that content. If they want the freedom to sell issues for personal profit, they can choose not to use copyright work, or to work out something with copyright holders. If they aren't concerned about profit, or selling it... then they can select copyright content if they want... but should identify its copyright status in the publication.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, everything anyone writes is copyrighted by default unless they specifically say otherwise. I won't be releasing anything kopyleft because I don't care for the idea of someone slicing, dicing, mincing, and then copyrighting and profiting off my work. That doesn't mean I wouldn't give away or sell reprinting rights to someone even with the knowledge that it may profit them... it just means I'm keeping the right to make that decision.

I also think that anyone who assembled kopyleft work into an issue of Intermittens (or any other publication) and then copyrighted the publication would be doing irreparable damage not only to their own reputation, but to the concept of kopyleft itself.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I also think that anyone who assembled kopyleft work into an issue of Intermittens (or any other publication) and then copyrighted the publication would be doing irreparable damage not only to their own reputation, but to the concept of kopyleft itself.

Some groups that have done editions of the PD have copyrighted the overall work. I mean, technically, even something like Illuminatus! is a copyright work with Kopyleft content inside it.

Overall though, I agree. It's something that technically you 'could do', however, its something that would probably damage your Discordian street cred.

Shades of Steve Jackson ITT 

[Cramulus]

"One time I sold this HUGE public domain work. I swear it must have been this big...!"
                                           \




yeah, it gets bigger every time you tell the story, Steve...

[Payne]

I'm with Cain here.

That is all.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"One time I sold this HUGE public domain work. I swear it must have been this big...!"
                                           \




yeah, it gets bigger every time you tell the story, Steve...

I'm with Cain here.

That is all.

Then make sure your work is Copyright.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also think that anyone who assembled kopyleft work into an issue of Intermittens (or any other publication) and then copyrighted the publication would be doing irreparable damage not only to their own reputation, but to the concept of kopyleft itself.

Some groups that have done editions of the PD have copyrighted the overall work. I mean, technically, even something like Illuminatus! is a copyright work with Kopyleft content inside it.

Overall though, I agree. It's something that technically you 'could do', however, its something that would probably damage your Discordian street cred.

Shades of Steve Jackson ITT 

Yeah, I was actually thinking about Steve Jackson, and that one lady who altered the PD and copyrighted her version.

I feel like there are shades of gray here, but overall I think that it would be Not Good if someone said "hey Kopyleft authors, I'm putting together a magazine!" and then, after the fact, copyrighted the magazine so that only they could reprint, distribute, and profit from it. It would leave a lot of authors rethinking releasing anything under Kopyleft.

If they let people know up front and got permission from each author first, that would be different... but it also would render Kopyleft completely meaningless. The idea of Kopyleft, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, was for materials to be shared freely for everyone to use and re-use, ad infinitum. If I have any Kopyleft work out there (which I don't think I do, but maybe I was drunk), I ONLY want it used in Kopyleft publications.

It's pretty standard in small-distribution magazines, and I mean with distributions up to the tens of thousands, for submissions to not be paid for. People still submit. I've got quite a bit of published work out there that I wasn't paid for, but it was a single-use license and copyright reverted to me.

[Triple Zero]

my two cents:

* "Kopyleft" has no legal status, and I've seen it been interpreted as anything from Public Domain up to "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Non-Commercial". therefore I would like to STRONGLY SUGGEST WE DO NOT USE THE TERM KOPYLEFT ANYMORE IN SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, but instead be explicit about one's license, just pick one of the four prefab ones from Creative Commons, and add your own exceptions if you like.

* I think, that if someone wants to sell Intermittens for profit, they should let the authors know beforehand, so they can decide whether to submit articles or not. I could explain why this is legally the case unless somebody explicitly stated otherwise, but it's also simply the proper thing to do.

* However, by submitting an article to an Intermittens issue, the author is implicitly giving permission to distribute and publish that article (while still retaining copyright unless otherwise agreed upon), which cannot be retracted. This makes sense because copies of the issue might (legally) be anywhere on the Internet by now, and there's no way to let the owners of that particular copy know that the license has suddenly changed.

* In case someone wants to sell Intermittens, I think that is allowed, provided they charge no more than the costs of printing. If they happen to make a bit of profit, somewhere in the order of a sixpack of beers or so, I don't think that should be such a big deal. Especially not if they drink the beer in the process of selling in order to cope with the psychological damage resulting from dealing with the Machine's Capitalist Gears :-P However, if it turns out to be, say, as much as to buy 10 friends a night of booze, I think that is not okay and they should give the money to PD as a community (maybe minus a sixpack).

[Telarus]

Further clarification:

From Cram and my earlier discussions, the sole point was to figure out how to get PHYSICAL Intermittens out to our friends and fellow Discordians. THIS WAS OUR ONLY MOTIVATION.

I absolutely empathize with Cain, as my girl and I are in basically the same situation (as many of us are).

The unfortunate reality of that is Physical Intermittens requires funding to get done. Thus we have this situation........

I will think about this more before replying any further.

[Payne]

I'm with Cain here.

That is all.

Then make sure your work is Copyright.

Cain isn't talking about Copyright, from what I read here. He may be, but what I see is someone asking where the fuck his cut is in his work being sold for profit without prior agreement.

And I agree.

I have made a post on Kopyleft Authors to reflect my view on this.

I'm happy for my work to be used but never for profit unless prior agreement is reached as to what my cut will be, and to what use my cut shall be used for.