"If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"

[drjon]

Heya! I brought my oar!

A note: I am not a Lawyer. I also don't eat babies nor rape dolphins or ponies.

Also, I think that Copyright law still applies with Kopyleft, since Kopyleft is not a legal anything.

...except a legal declaration of the Author's intent. If that doesn't count, then nothing an Author asserts counts, and you might as well go get a job making deckchairs.

...the content of The Black Iron Prison pamphlet is Copyright of the authors...

Ah, so there's an Undeclared Interest finally revealed, hey? ;}P>

The Right to Copy in a work is controlled by the Author of that work. That's what "Copyright" means. If an Author believes it's in the best interest of themself and their work for them to lift restrictions on copying that work, then they have a number of options in asserting that this is the case. The Discordian "Kopyleft" is one of those options. There are others. For instance...

http://creativecommons.org/license/

CC can be useful when dealing with All Mouth And Trousers spags. And there's more types of theft than just stealing someone's work.

So, you believe it would be within the spirit of kopyleft for someone to post "Alternate Snub #5" and say it was written by Hoopla, and then have the entire content of the story to consist solely of the word "Diarrhea"?

Verendum Veritas, HAIL ERIS! ...παρα δε Ἔρις παντα δυνατα εστιν... I have oft woken to discover this very scenario had occured... ;}P>

Well, that's patently ridiculous.  Clearly I have completely misunderstood every aspect of kopyleft.

Prolly not. Kopyleft changes nothing when it comes to Moral Rights, and your Moral Rights would be being violated if someone else's works were being presented falsely as your work.

Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.

What a clever Mr Berne! Sorry guys, Kopyleft doesn't mean you can wriggle out of others blaming you for what you wrote.

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

Article's broken (like so much in Wikipedia--blame spags who think they have a clue). Claims the PD dates from the 70s.

However, Anne Rice does not put her stuff into the public domain. In fact, she gives explicit restrictions on what would otherwise be part of fair use (Anne Rice fanfiction is not allowed, for instance).

Fair Use is a two-edged sword. You can put restrictions on the Fair Use of your work. It doesn't mean anything, that's all.

Though we could add the PD.com addendum: "This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."

I wish that was legally binding.

So very, very much.

I think my shit is my shit.  I post it, I normally allow people to use it, but I insist on being credited.  Does that mean I can't be a Discordian?

Sounds Discordian to me.  The Ur-Discordians credited their and others' works. They believed in Kopyleft, because they supported each-other's work, reprinted and reused and redistributed it... which is why about 90% of Discordians are Discordians today--Discordianism was able to infect them down the memevine.

Kopyleft is not equal to Public Domain, it's demonstrably a declaration of Author Intent. "Reprint what you like". "I permit that this work may be Copied". "Don't reprint what displeases you".

Kopyleft is part and parcel of Discordianism... historically speaking, at least. I suspect this situation will continue, because you guys aren't as screwed in the head as you purport to be.

(Edited because Unicoding sux)

[the last yatto]

The use of "Copyleft; All Wrongs Reserved" in 1976

i always thought of it like public domain but with a "safe" word

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

DrJon:

-- good answers, thanks for clarifying.

I think that this notion of this is inherent to Discordia. There's a sort of zen-buddhism implied in Kopyleft. Kopyleft forces a detachment from any territorial stake in your ideas. It forces us to communicate and entertain each other in a way where we have little to personally gain - it's communication for communication's sake. Not for the market, not for the ego, not for the benjamins.

1.  So, to be Discordian, I have to believe in, say, free stores?

nah, people can charge what they want, protect what they want, share what they want. A lot of people copy protect their work out of default. But I consider it a really creative cooperative gesture when people de-protect their work. I feel it's in the spirit of those original spags, whose uncopyrighted work we so proudly display on the front page.

Our community here is notorious for producing "output". Often that output is the original creation of the author. But much of the stuff we churn out is a remix of various people's material. Intermittens comes to mind.  I admit to not really checking for permission on the first issue of Intermittens, because I was trying to produce the thing in under three hours. It was really cavalier of me, but I felt that it was warranted since this community is generally accepting of spreading each other's ideas. When we have a lot of "free" ideas floating around, it makes it really easy (and fun!) to assemble these collections of art, words, music, whatever.

Now Hoops has said, "My stuff is no longer for reproduction." he modified his note in the Kopyleft thread to make sure that nobody reproduces his work. I will respect his wishes and not include any of his work in future puplications. Hey, maybe he wants to profit off that stuff - cool, I hope he does! But now the rest of us have less material to play with and that makes me sad.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Heya! I brought my oar!

A note: I am not a Lawyer. I also don't eat babies nor rape dolphins or ponies.

Also, I think that Copyright law still applies with Kopyleft, since Kopyleft is not a legal anything.

Kopyleft is not equal to Public Domain, it's demonstrably a declaration of Author Intent. "Reprint what you like". "I permit that this work may be Copied". "Don't reprint what displeases you".

Kopyleft is part and parcel of Discordianism... historically speaking, at least. I suspect this situation will continue, because you guys aren't as screwed in the head as you purport to be.

(Edited because Unicoding sux)

I personally love Kopyleft... but (at least here in the US) it doesn't mean anything from a legal standpoint. Thus, it's not a license and in the US, if no license is stated, the work is Copyright.

IMO, if someone were to put (k) on a document then try to sue some poor spag... I'd say they were probably an ass. However, the US would consider that person the Author and someone 'stealing' the content would be in the wrong 'legally'.

I'm not a lawyer, but my friends at the office are very high paid ones

If an Author believes it's in the best interest of themself and their work for them to lift restrictions on copying that work, then they have a number of options in asserting that this is the case. The Discordian "Kopyleft" is one of those options

Everything there is correct except the comment about (k). In the US at least it would apparently be more likely to be considered 'art' than 'license' if it ever went to court.

Just because you and I, my dear Doc, respect the Authors intent with (K) and I personally release mosbunal of my stuff under (k)... Uncle Sam doesn't tend to appreciate agreed upon rules if some expensive lawyer wasn't involved

LOL

Though we could add the PD.com addendum: "This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."

I wish that was legally binding.

So very, very much.

It's just as binding as K

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Kopyleft is part and parcel of Discordianism...

RUBBISH!   

because you guys aren't as screwed in the head as you purport to be.

RUBBISH!   

(Edited because Unicoding sux)

RUBBISH!   

[The Good Reverend Roger]

DrJon:

-- good answers, thanks for clarifying.

I think that this notion of this is inherent to Discordia. There's a sort of zen-buddhism implied in Kopyleft. Kopyleft forces a detachment from any territorial stake in your ideas. It forces us to communicate and entertain each other in a way where we have little to personally gain - it's communication for communication's sake. Not for the market, not for the ego, not for the benjamins.

1.  So, to be Discordian, I have to believe in, say, free stores?

nah, people can charge what they want, protect what they want, share what they want. A lot of people copy protect their work out of default. But I consider it a really creative cooperative gesture when people de-protect their work. I feel it's in the spirit of those original spags, whose uncopyrighted work we so proudly display on the front page.

Our community here is notorious for producing "output". Often that output is the original creation of the author. But much of the stuff we churn out is a remix of various people's material. Intermittens comes to mind.  I admit to not really checking for permission on the first issue of Intermittens, because I was trying to produce the thing in under three hours. It was really cavalier of me, but I felt that it was warranted since this community is generally accepting of spreading each other's ideas. When we have a lot of "free" ideas floating around, it makes it really easy (and fun!) to assemble these collections of art, words, music, whatever.

Now Hoops has said, "My stuff is no longer for reproduction." he modified his note in the Kopyleft thread to make sure that nobody reproduces his work. I will respect his wishes and not include any of his work in future puplications. Hey, maybe he wants to profit off that stuff - cool, I hope he does! But now the rest of us have less material to play with and that makes me sad.

My work is NEVER Kopyleft.  Thing is, I almost always allow it to be used.  It's really simple:  Ask me, credit me, off ya go.  In fact, I have issued blanket approvals for ALL material as a matter of course...but that only applied to the person asking.

I don't see what's so hard.

[Template]

How do you guys feel about this? Should all Discordian works be KopyLeft? I like the idea that if I say something sort of cool, somebody else might take it, polish it up, and use it for something really cool. I feel that once an idea leaves your mouth, it's alive in a way you can no longer control.

Well, sure.  Excuse me, I'm going to slap a new cover on F Scott Fitzgerald novels and sell them for my own profit.

Suppose I write "Or kill me" at the very end of the novel, and then read it as if TGRR wrote it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

How do you guys feel about this? Should all Discordian works be KopyLeft? I like the idea that if I say something sort of cool, somebody else might take it, polish it up, and use it for something really cool. I feel that once an idea leaves your mouth, it's alive in a way you can no longer control.

Well, sure.  Excuse me, I'm going to slap a new cover on F Scott Fitzgerald novels and sell them for my own profit.

Suppose I write "Or kill me" at the very end of the novel, and then read it as if TGRR wrote it.

What?  You mean like if Daisy had syphilis, Tom died of genital warts, and Nick Carroway watched it all in mounting horror, then made off with the silverware and the maid?

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I'm sure Daisy must have had *something*. You can't have that much indiscriminate sex with the 1920s nouveau riche without catching something.

This may explain why so many people went totally bonkers at the end.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm sure Daisy must have had *something*. You can't have that much indiscriminate sex with the 1920s nouveau riche without catching something.

This may explain why so many people went totally bonkers at the end.

See?  I'm a fucking GENIUS!

[Reginald Ret]

The Right to Copy in a work is controlled by the Author of that work. That's what "Copyright" means. If an Author believes it's in the best interest of themself and their work for them to lift restrictions on copying that work, then they have a number of options in asserting that this is the case. The Discordian "Kopyleft" is one of those options. There are others. For instance...

These options magically stop existing when the Author decides to not act in his best interest? Since when does being stupid acting against your own best interests reduce your legal options?

'Don't just defend the right to be stupid, exercise it!'

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

The Right to Copy in a work is controlled by the Author of that work. That's what "Copyright" means. If an Author lifts restrictions on copying that work, then they have a number of options in asserting that this is the case. The Discordian "Kopyleft" is one of those options. There are others. For instance...

Fixed for great justice system.

[LMNO]

I so need to write a dystopic comedy about a state where people have constitutional rights, but don't know what what rights they have, due to them being classified for national security reasons.  Somebody remind me when I'm less sleep deprived so I can decide if I really want to do it.

This is a great idea.  I see it in the style of PKD; with lots of semicolons and run-on sentences that will infuriate people who only study "real" literature.

[Cain]

Interestingly, the BBC produced its list of the 100 greatest pieces of literature last week.  The average person has read 6 from the list.

[LMNO]

Is that the one that inclues "The Da Vinci Code" and "Bridget Jones' Diary"?


I wonder about their definition of "great"...