Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Principia Discussion => Topic started by: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM

Title: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
Discordianism and the concept of KopyLeft go hand in hand. Although just a small part of the counter-culture gestalt, I believe that the Principia Discordia was probably one of the earliest expressions and strongest champions of this idea, which has since seen such concepts as the "Open Source Software" initiative, with endeavors such as the Linux OS. Remember, if it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian. This concept is at Discordia's very heart, ye and its spleen, gonads and pineal gland. Or something. I remember stumbling across the Discordian internet site some meatboy had constructed and copyrighted - I laughed and laughed at the sad-arsed bastard. No doubt Eris will accordingly soften him sorely.

         -The Rev. DrJon Swabey, from the intro to the Apocrypha Discordia




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.

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.

I think the Kopyleft principle is alive and well in this community. For example, we create a lot of our own channels of entertainment. We have a magazine, a radio station (coming soon!), and about a zillion pdfs, meme bombs, and miscellaneous marginalia. None of this would be possible if we weren't comfortable taking, breaking, remixing and replaying each other's work.

I think about the Meme Bomb thread, and how we have probably a half dozen "best of" collections. It's now difficult and unimportant to determine who said what. The vast majority of the meme bombs aren't creditable to a specific author without some dilligent searching. Most commonly, the meme bombs are attributed to the community - an interesting concept, to be sure! Is this ideological socialism? Is our communication better when there aren't any pissing contests about who controls what ideas?

Please note that I'm not trying to start a thread about the merits and flaws of the copyright system, or whether artists should get paid for their work. I'm interested in discussing the notion that Everything Discordian Should Be (K). What's your take on it?

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Jasper on February 16, 2009, 07:37:43 PM
You lost me at "Everything Discordian should".
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 16, 2009, 07:38:55 PM
I hate it. Saying "If it's not Kopyleft, it's not Discordian" creates a really rigid dogma that runs completely contrary to the Hodge/Podge principle, and therefore is an anti-Discordian proclamation in itself.

I love Kopyleft, I think it's great. I just hate dogma.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: East Coast Hustle on February 16, 2009, 07:46:31 PM
yeah, I make almost everything I post here and at other discordian-ish sites KopyLeft but I think anyone who tells me that I HAVE to do that to be a REAL TRUE DISCORDIAN can suck the corn out of my asshole.

If other people wanna claim rights on their stuff, that's their business not mine or Discordia's.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 16, 2009, 07:46:55 PM
The Illuminatus Trilogy
Reality Is What You Can Get Away With


Off the top of my head, I fond both of those to be rather interesting Discordian works and neither are Kopyleft.

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:46:55 PM
The language (or my usage of it) is a bit tangled, so I want to draw a distinction between two usages of the word "should". I'm not saying "should = must" as in "Discordian stuff MUST be Kopyleft". I meant it more in the same way that someone might say "You shouldn't drive drunk." a proscription, not a rule.

Maybe answer this question: I' m writing a Discordian work / composing a Discordian song / drawing a Discordian picture. Should I release it as Kopyleft?


On a separate note, I posit that Steve Jackson's version of the Principia, which is copyrighted, is less Discordian than the practically identical version that is Kopyleft. Yes?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:50:03 PM
(I also want to note that my mind isn't made up on the matter. I posted the quote and the above thoughts because I'm still chewing on it.)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: bds on February 16, 2009, 07:50:13 PM
I don't think people object to your idea Cram, it's just the principle of the blanket statement that things SHOULD be something.
However, I would much prefer it if everything was Kopyleft, yes.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Jasper on February 16, 2009, 07:50:27 PM
If you're selling something that someone else could steal, then (K) is not for you.  Otherwise, go mad with it.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 16, 2009, 07:54:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 16, 2009, 07:38:55 PM
I hate it. Saying "If it's not Kopyleft, it's not Discordian" creates a really rigid dogma that runs completely contrary to the Hodge/Podge principle, and therefore is an anti-Discordian proclamation in itself.

I love Kopyleft, I think it's great. I just hate dogma.

Beat me to it. :lulz:


Kopyleft is awesome, and I personally think that copyrighting Discordian stuff is uber-laem. However, there's not much of a need to join Kopyleft and Discordianism at the hip. I'm content with merely mocking and shunning those who try to make Discordianism "theirs," and I'd rather not set up Discordianism as an ideal to be achieved.


I mean, just roll this around in your head:

"That's un-Discordian!"

Sounds kinda gross to me, honestly. It's one step from there to Really Real Discordianism™.


In short, Kopyleft is every bit as cool as you say it is, and it is extremely beneficial to our flavor of Discordia. I'd just rather not make one contingent on the other.



ETA: I know this isn't about Really Real Discordianism™, I was just making an example. Didn't mean to turn the thread into "ZOMG Did you just try to put Discordianism in a box?! FUCK YUO!" We have enough of that already.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Reginald Ret on February 16, 2009, 08:28:11 PM
Though i personally agree wholeheartedly that Everything Discordian Should Be Kopyleft, I think it would be bad rule for this (or any) community to adopt.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 16, 2009, 08:32:31 PM
I think that there are a lot of Discordian works that are copyrighted, and some of their authors don't even know they're Discordian.

If someone sells their copyrighted Discordian work, and it earns them money to make more Discordian art, does the Discordian Society win or lose? What if someone was able to make ten times as much Discordian art over their lifetime than if they were not able to get paid for it?

Eventually it enters the public domain anyway.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Jasper on February 16, 2009, 08:45:29 PM
I think the general tone here is that a pragmatic approach is superior to an idealistic one. 
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Aufenthatt on February 16, 2009, 11:43:14 PM
Considering that Discordians regect the consept of right and wrong, can it be wrong to make money out of people using Discordian ideas?

So to copyright is not 'un-discordian'?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Jasper on February 17, 2009, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on February 16, 2009, 11:43:14 PM
Considering that Discordians regect the consept of right and wrong, can it be wrong to make money out of people using Discordian ideas?

So to copyright is not 'un-discordian'?

Suppose your premise isn't mired or whatever.  Right/Wrong dualism is irrelevant. 

All that assumed, Copywright protections are not opposed to the discordian ideal on principle, but they are probably not in the spirit of the thing.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Lies on February 17, 2009, 12:49:38 PM
Quote from: Regret on February 16, 2009, 08:28:11 PM
Though i personally agree wholeheartedly that Everything Discordian Should Be Kopyleft, I think it would be bad rule for this (or any) community to adopt.
This.
But of course, there are no rules to discordianism.

Hence, I think it comes down to, do as thou wilt will be the whole of the law, just remember, no one likes an arsehole.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: AFK on February 17, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Quote from: Aufenthatt on February 16, 2009, 11:43:14 PM
Considering that Discordians regect the consept of right and wrong, can it be wrong to make money out of people using Discordian ideas?

So to copyright is not 'un-discordian'?

If it is wrong then it is imperative we kill Steve Jackson immediately.  If it isn't wrong, well, it's still a good plan. 
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: LMNO on February 17, 2009, 03:01:23 PM
The minute I can viably make enough money to live off this shit, I'm going to, even if it means ©.



Yeah, I said it.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 17, 2009, 05:40:04 PM
For me personally, it depends on the material. A poem, rant, story etc... that's all (K). If however, I write an 800 page Novel that is worth publishing... it will probably be (C) or Creative Commons etc. but not (K) (since K isn't actually anything other than a Discordian joke).
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Reginald Ret on February 18, 2009, 02:32:30 AM
Quote from: LMNO on February 17, 2009, 03:01:23 PM
The minute I can viably make enough money to live off this shit, I'm going to, even if it means ©.



Yeah, I said it.
Pfff the minute i can make any amount of money of this shit, I'm going to. though i'm not getting out of my bed for less than 5 bucks an hour.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2009, 02:40:53 AM
Kopyleft, the traditional discordian kind where you give no other conditions, ensures that if it goes to court it will cause the maximum possible headache for the lawyers.

Kopyleft is also in line with nondogmatism, since it makes reinterpretations easy to make.

Though with any copyleft question, the big thing you should ask yourself is what are you giving up.  If you're going to give it away free, a minimum no derivs non commercial license doesn't hurt you, and potentially helps someone else.  If you don't care if people make derivatives or not, then allow those too.  Basically, I'm saying, with anything really, be as free with it as you feel you can.  No point in locking away things you don't actually need to be locked up.

Tl; DR version: go with kopyleft unless you have a good reason not to.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 18, 2009, 02:44:21 AM
well said
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 18, 2009, 04:34:23 AM
Also, I think that Copyright law still applies with Kopyleft, since Kopyleft is not a legal anything. If the license something is released under is null and void, default copyright laws come into play... at least that was the understanding back when the GPL was being tested in court.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Requia ☣ on February 18, 2009, 05:10:56 AM
The GPL has never been in court outside of Germany as far as I know.

Copyleft, without the K, has a fairly general meaning, and law in the US is mostly about pissing contests over whats been done, or what something meant in the past. (see Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd. v. BNS International Sales Corp)  Though having the copyleft of a widely distributed discordian work suddenly turn into standard copyright would be funny as hell imho.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Iason Ouabache on February 18, 2009, 07:54:53 AM
My understanding is that Kopyleft is the exact same thing as Share-alike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share-alike): "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license."
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 18, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
It is a bit murky. I've always interpreted "all rights reversed" as "public domain", it's just that those spags Mal and Omar didn't have that word yet. But yeah, it's not quite so clear.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 18, 2009, 04:45:28 PM
Well, according to the spags in the legal dept. There is no legal definition for "Kopyleft" therefore it would be considered as part of the art/piece/creative work and not a license re. that creative work. However, in US Copyright, for example, the content of The Black Iron Prison pamphlet is Copyright of the authors.

KC: YEah, I should have reworded it to "threatened with court" not tested in court. Sorry :)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Triple Zero on February 19, 2009, 12:00:29 AM
I've always assumed that Kopyleft basically means "public domain". Although looking it up on wikipedia, it seems that legally, it doesn't mean anything, and therefore default copyright law would apply.

Anyway, assuming it means public domain, I agree with some of the posters that it's a bad idea to consider it dogma.

On the other hand, the more discordian material is free to use, the better, IMO.

Personally, if I were to pick a license for my discordian works, i'd rather go for the Creative Commons Non-Commercial / Share Alike / Attribution license.

Mostly for the reason that if I were to publish something public domain, and someone uses it and makes a lot of money out of it, I'd feel kind of sour about that. But if someone sees my work, thinks of something to make a lot of money out of it, the CC license doesn't prevent them from contacting me, so we can work out a specific non-transferrable commercial license (not even necessarily for a fee).
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Requia ☣ on February 19, 2009, 08:43:08 AM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 18, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
It is a bit murky. I've always interpreted "all rights reversed" as "public domain", it's just that those spags Mal and Omar didn't have that word yet. But yeah, it's not quite so clear.

The kopyleft statement of the PD is moot.  At the time, if you didn't actually say copyrighted you had no copyright, and copylefts legal status is based on being able to claim copyright if somebody violates the terms of copyleft.

And they very much had the term public domain, thats an old proper legal definition.  Kopyleft was unique.  The very concept of copyleft may be the biggest impact Hill and Thornley had on our society.  One day I will track down Stallman, give him a free beer, and try to get the truth out of him if he had any contact with discordians or the literature before '83, or if it really did spring fully formed out of his head.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 19, 2009, 03:24:32 PM
Quote from: KC on February 19, 2009, 08:43:08 AM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 18, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
It is a bit murky. I've always interpreted "all rights reversed" as "public domain", it's just that those spags Mal and Omar didn't have that word yet. But yeah, it's not quite so clear.

The kopyleft statement of the PD is moot.  At the time, if you didn't actually say copyrighted you had no copyright, and copylefts legal status is based on being able to claim copyright if somebody violates the terms of copyleft.

And they very much had the term public domain, thats an old proper legal definition.  Kopyleft was unique.  The very concept of copyleft may be the biggest impact Hill and Thornley had on our society.  One day I will track down Stallman, give him a free beer, and try to get the truth out of him if he had any contact with discordians or the literature before '83, or if it really did spring fully formed out of his head.

Already did that. Stallman said he heard about Kopyleft while he was first working on the GPL because one of his friends thought it was equally absurd. I think Richard was lying, because he said it was a freind.  :lulz:

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 02:48:18 PM
I consider everything "Discordian" I have ever written as kopyleft, however, if I found something I knew was mine somewhere and it was altered, or someone else claimed they wrote it I would be HELLA PISSED, and they would truly know the wrath of the Hoopla. 
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 02:53:45 PM
maybe you shouldn't be using Kopyleft then?

because marking it (K) kind of grants the right to remix and reuse it. Someone with common courtesy would still credit you, and only a shitfuck would plagerize. But if you're not comfortable with people altering your work, don't mark it (K).
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2009, 02:56:13 PM
http://creativecommons.org/license/
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 03:02:22 PM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 02:53:45 PM
maybe you shouldn't be using Kopyleft then?

because marking it (K) kind of grants the right to remix and reuse it. Someone with common courtesy would still credit you, and only a shitfuck would plagerize. But if you're not comfortable with people altering your work, don't mark it (K).

:cn:

Where does it say that's what Kopyleft means?  I was under the impression it mean to distribute freely.


Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2009, 02:56:13 PM
http://creativecommons.org/license/

That's interesting Cain... perhaps I will use that in the future.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cain on February 20, 2009, 03:05:08 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2009, 02:56:13 PM
http://creativecommons.org/license/

That's interesting Cain... perhaps I will use that in the future.

I keep meaning to put it on my blog, but never get around to it.  I know it has no legal standing...but it at least indicates the author's wishes and desires for the work in question.

Also:

(http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/5/54/Kopyleftimg.jpg)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on February 20, 2009, 03:14:40 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 19, 2009, 03:24:32 PM
Quote from: KC on February 19, 2009, 08:43:08 AM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 18, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
It is a bit murky. I've always interpreted "all rights reversed" as "public domain", it's just that those spags Mal and Omar didn't have that word yet. But yeah, it's not quite so clear.

The kopyleft statement of the PD is moot.  At the time, if you didn't actually say copyrighted you had no copyright, and copylefts legal status is based on being able to claim copyright if somebody violates the terms of copyleft.

And they very much had the term public domain, thats an old proper legal definition.  Kopyleft was unique.  The very concept of copyleft may be the biggest impact Hill and Thornley had on our society.  One day I will track down Stallman, give him a free beer, and try to get the truth out of him if he had any contact with discordians or the literature before '83, or if it really did spring fully formed out of his head.

Already did that. Stallman said he heard about Kopyleft while he was first working on the GPL because one of his friends thought it was equally absurd. I think Richard was lying, because he said it was a freind.  :lulz:
I got the impression that RMS got jaked. That certainly fits with my model of RMS and my model of MIT.



I might argue that everything discordian IS (K), pragmatically speaking, whether or not it's marked as (K). Discordians aren't necessarily ones to give a shit about whether or not somebody else uses their shit, nor are they necessarily ones to worry endlessly over copyright law. I am sure that if any of us find something awesome enough to share, we will share it based on whether or not we want to share it and whether or not we think it's worth sharing, not based solely on whether or not it says "all rights reserved" and "do not photocopy". That may factor in, of course, but we recognize that it's a factor that we choose to in.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 03:28:08 PM
I'm beginning to think it'd be nice to have an agreed-upon definition of Kopyleft, because clearly people are offering and protecting different rights with the same stamp.



This is repost, but here's Syn's thoughts on Kopyleft, care of poee.co.uk -----


QuoteKopyLeft - All Rights Reversed.

"Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free." - Nicholas Petreley

All quotes and images from other sources are copyright their respective owners, but any content original to this document is open source, unless specifically stated otherwise. Do with it what you like, but please attribute properly, even if you do not agree with the KopyLeft principle.

KopyLeft ensures the widest dissemination of information. We disagree with the way that copyright and patent law in the United States and around the world is unceasingly modified and broadened due to lobbying by corporations such as Disney and organizations such as the MPAA. It is ludicrous and inexcusable to equate copyright infringement with terrorism, as MPAA president Jack Valenti did, and we want no part of that mindset.

Copyright laws were originally created to ensure that creators benefited from their works, but current laws favor publishers and corporations, not the individual artist.

Public domain allows works to become integral parts of other works – Alice in Wonderland is a good example. It has been borrowed from by thousands of artists for thousands of reasons, and because of this, the story has lived on and grown with us to the point of becoming archetypical. This is not possible with works that are still under copyright for obvious reasons.

In the information age, our cultural heritage has gone global. Scheherazade’s work is almost as much a part of our cultural heritage as Shakespeare and Carroll. Innovations and enhancements on all of their works enrich the scope and power of the original to inform our global culture and provide a familiar framework for the innovator to work within.

For Eris’ sake, even weather data is under strict copyright – the National Weather Service is limited on what weather data it is allowed to provide free on its website, since the private sector owns pieces of the information.

I find it especially disappointing that the company that has benefited most from information in the public domain is leading the fight to keep their versions of those public domain works under strict copyright. Creators should certainly profit from their works, but when the creator and their spouse are dead, what right does a corporation have to the intellectual property, especially for such an extended amount of time? Obviously, the answer to this is that they have the right of political influence and graft in the form of campaign contributions.

Since we can do nothing about these misguided souls, we have KopyLefted our material. It isn’t Shakespeare, but it’s the best we can do. What do you think of that, Petreley?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 03:39:42 PM
I don't think anything in there contradicted what I wanted done with my work.

It's one thing for someone to write a story featuring 'Hoopla' or 'Captain Thundermug' or 'YoYo Forgrave' in other situations, and quite a different thing for someone to take my 'Alternate Snub #5' and decide that maybe Eris should blow everyone under the table in the middle of the story.

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 03:47:43 PM
It appears to me that Syn is using the terms "public domain" and "kopyleft" interchangably.

What I'm saying is that if you've marked 'Alternate Snub #5' as Kopyleft, I can publish a version in which all the characters are talking penises (or whatever). I think that's well within the spirit of Kopyleft whether I asked you for permission or not, whether you like the new version or not.

this is repost too, but here's the "No License" description at uncyclopedia.com, which I think is also in the spirit of Kopyleft:

QuoteLicensed under absolutely nothing. Have a fucking field day. Abuse this for your own sick pleasures.    
I am content releasing my work completely to the public without conservative, territorial, and possessive need to claim some sort of stake in it. I do not need thousands of cleverly written loophole-"some rights reserved" licenses, nor do I need to debate about the superiority of any of them, rather, I toss the entire equation out the window and render it effectively useless. I fully realise that a man in El Salvador could profit wildly from my efforts and gain the millions of dollars I never did, and could theoretically hunt down every copy and burn it, leaving him as the sole distributor; however, this does not offend me, rather, I allow all to be shared, taking the risk and fully knowing the potential repercussions, rather than let the menace that is copyright conquer yet another soul.



Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 03:50:41 PM
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"?

I just want to be clear.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 03:54:54 PM
it would be rude as fuck, but I believe that's in the spirit of Public Domain, yeah. Whether Kopyleft equals Public Domain or not is still debatable. Many people do equate (K) with Public Domain, so it's plausable that a (K) work can be used in that way.



just like how since Lewis Carroll's been dead for over a century, I can now publish a book called "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and fill it with pictures of my cock. Nobody's going to sue me (except the legislator's office I leave it in).



actually, is misattribution legal under public domain? I don't actually know. Like could I publish "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll" and fill it with dongs with no legal reprecussions?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 03:57:07 PM
Well, that's patently ridiculous.  Clearly I have completely misunderstood every aspect of kopyleft.


Now I have to spend the weekend attempting to delete everything Discordian I have ever written from the internet.  That will be difficult on boards I've been banned from.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: AFK on February 20, 2009, 03:58:35 PM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 03:54:54 PM
it would be rude as fuck, but I believe that's in the spirit of Public Domain, yeah. Whether Kopyleft equals Public Domain or not is still debatable. Many people do equate (K) with Public Domain, so it's plausable that a (K) work can be used in that way.



just like how since Lewis Carroll's been dead for over a century, I can now publish a book called "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and fill it with pictures of my cock. Nobody's going to sue me except the legislator's office I leave it in.



actually, is misattribution legal under public domain? I don't actually know. Like could I publish "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll" and fill it with dongs with no legal reprecussions?

I have no legal basis for it but my gut tells me no.  

In a way, I would think you might be able to make an argument that it was slander.  Because you are essentially putting words into someone's mouth and attributing an inaccurate writing character to an author.  

I mean, I would think Anne Rice would be pretty ticked off if someone swapped "Interview With a Vampire" with the text of Anne Coulter's latest bowel eruption.  
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:02:51 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 03:50:41 PM
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"?

I just want to be clear.

I think it would be in the spirit of Kopyleft. IE "Do As Thou Will is the Whole of The (K)"

Of course, in the US, Alternate Snub #5 is Copyright by Baron Von Hoopla (a pseudonym for *insert author here*). Thus if someone took your work and turned it into talking penises, you could nail them under US Copyright law.

Ironically, that means "Sue as You Will is the Whole of The Law"

:lulz:

Long way to go for the pun... I know


Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:05:47 PM
interesting reading I actually hadn't seen before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on February 20, 2009, 04:05:58 PM
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).

If you put something into the public domain, it is public domain. I may not be able to credit a book full of dongs to Hoopla, but I can probably do it to Lewis Carrol because he's been dead for over a century and doesn't really give a fuck. Copyright law is not deeply intertwingled with restrictions on libel in this case.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:08:05 PM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:05:47 PM
interesting reading I actually hadn't seen before:

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

Yes, good stuff there. Copyleft is a reference to open licenses... Kopyleft is a Discordian uh... thing. ;-)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: AFK on February 20, 2009, 04:09:33 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 20, 2009, 04:05:58 PM
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).

If you put something into the public domain, it is public domain. I may not be able to credit a book full of dongs to Hoopla, but I can probably do it to Lewis Carrol because he's been dead for over a century and doesn't really give a fuck. Copyright law is not deeply intertwingled with restrictions on libel in this case.

You are taking my example too literally.  I thought it was understood that I was supposing the two's material were in the public domain.  It was just a little bit of make believe to make a point.  
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

cool. It's your stuff, it's your right.  :thumb:
please update your first post in the Kopyleft Author thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11808.0), because that's the first thing (and sometimes only thing) people check when they're putting together a PDF which contains others' work.

Note that it'll be problematic to un-kopyleft and re-protect the stuff already published in Intermittens.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 04:18:11 PM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

cool. It's your stuff, it's your right.  :thumb:
please update your first post in the Kopyleft Author thread (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11808.0), because that's the first thing (and sometimes only thing) people check when they're putting together a PDF which contains others' work.

Note that it'll be problematic to un-kopyleft and re-protect the stuff already published in Intermittens.

Done.

And, I will have to put a great deal of thought into my future involvement with Intermittens.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:23:05 PM
Keep in mind that NONE of Bahweeds stuff is Kopyleft. Kopyleft is NOT REAL in any sense except the sense that Discordians choose to use it in. We don't have to 'go back' to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Intermittens content is legally Copyright of its authors.

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 04:25:10 PM
If it's any consolation, most people are too lazy to totally fuck up another person's piece of writing.


That said,

Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:14:28 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes.  (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11808.0), Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. (Dongs.  Dildoes.) Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes.

Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes-Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:26:34 PM
DAMN YOU LMNO, DAMN YOU!!
MY WORK WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE PERVERTED LIKE THAT

:lmnuendo:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:28:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:23:05 PM
Keep in mind that NONE of Bahweeds stuff is Kopyleft. Kopyleft is NOT REAL in any sense except the sense that Discordians choose to use it in. We don't have to 'go back' to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Intermittens content is legally Copyright of its authors.



Though we could add the PD.com addendum:

"This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 20, 2009, 04:31:31 PM
That's more like it.   :lol:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:32:54 PM
Quote from: bawheed on February 20, 2009, 04:31:31 PM
That's more like it.   :lol:
Ah good. That is just as 'legal' as Kopyleft ;-)

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: LMNO on February 20, 2009, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:28:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:23:05 PM
Keep in mind that NONE of Bahweeds stuff is Kopyleft. Kopyleft is NOT REAL in any sense except the sense that Discordians choose to use it in. We don't have to 'go back' to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Intermittens content is legally Copyright of its authors.



Though we could add the PD.com addendum:

"This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."

That is 107% win.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:38:29 PM
from the wikipedia entry:

QuoteCopyleft is a form of licensing and can be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme. A widely used and originating copyleft license is the GNU General Public License. Similar licenses are available through Creative Commons—called Share-alike.

Copyleft can also be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no copyright restrictions are imposed), copyleft allows an author to impose some, but not all, copyright restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Under copyleft, copyright infringement can be avoided if the would-be infringer perpetuates the same copyleft scheme. For this reason copyleft licenses are also known as "reciprocal" licenses.

While copyright law protects the rights of the creator by providing control of distribution and modification, the idea of copyleft is to grant subjective libre freedom to end users. Copyleft licenses specify clauses which explicity remove those restrictions the creator considers to not provide libre freedom to the end user.


So they're saying that the GNU GPL, Creative Commons, Share-Alike, etc, are all a type of Copyleft.
Framed like that, merely saying that your work is Kopyleft is meaningless because you haven't specified which rights you're protecting by naming a specific license.

How does this jibe with the note at the beginning of Intermittens which says
QuoteAll content (unless otherwise marked) is from / for the public domain.
?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:45:22 PM
Quote from: Phineas Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:38:29 PM
from the wikipedia entry:

QuoteCopyleft is a form of licensing and can be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme. A widely used and originating copyleft license is the GNU General Public License. Similar licenses are available through Creative Commons—called Share-alike.

Copyleft can also be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no copyright restrictions are imposed), copyleft allows an author to impose some, but not all, copyright restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Under copyleft, copyright infringement can be avoided if the would-be infringer perpetuates the same copyleft scheme. For this reason copyleft licenses are also known as "reciprocal" licenses.

While copyright law protects the rights of the creator by providing control of distribution and modification, the idea of copyleft is to grant subjective libre freedom to end users. Copyleft licenses specify clauses which explicity remove those restrictions the creator considers to not provide libre freedom to the end user.


So they're saying that the GNU GPL, Creative Commons, Share-Alike, etc, are all a type of Copyleft.
Framed like that, merely saying that your work is Kopyleft is meaningless because you haven't specified which rights you're protecting by naming a specific license.

How does this jibe with the note at the beginning of Intermittens which says
QuoteAll content (unless otherwise marked) is from / for the public domain.
?

Copyleft is not Kopyleft anyway. Copyleft is a category of licenses that provide greater rights to the public than Copyright. Kopyleft is a Discordian joke.

<i>All content (unless otherwise marked) is from / for the public domain.</i>

This, however, is a bit more interesting. In theory, 'public domain' means that there are no legal restrictions on its use.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: AFK on February 20, 2009, 04:55:21 PM
I would just like to throw out, that in light of this discussion, if anyone is having second thoughts on their stuff for Intermittens #3 being published, please let me know.  Because

A) I don't want to piss anyone off

and

B) It will mean less work for me to do.   :lol:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Triple Zero on February 20, 2009, 08:36:08 PM
how about, if people really want to be sure, they use a Creative Commons license? there's six different versions to choose from, that cover pretty much all bases, and they're explained in like 3 sentences of non-lawyers speak on http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

they range from the really permissive "public domain except you gotta credit me" up to the most restrictive "you are free to download my stuff and give it to others, but cannot change it or remix it or sell it, and it has to keep my name on it, always", and variations in between.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 08:50:14 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 20, 2009, 08:36:08 PM
how about, if people really want to be sure, they use a Creative Commons license? there's six different versions to choose from, that cover pretty much all bases, and they're explained in like 3 sentences of non-lawyers speak on http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

they range from the really permissive "public domain except you gotta credit me" up to the most restrictive "you are free to download my stuff and give it to others, but cannot change it or remix it or sell it, and it has to keep my name on it, always", and variations in between.

IAWTC
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on February 20, 2009, 08:50:23 PM
Legally speaking, public domain and copyleft are entirely separate entities, and kopyleft (to the extent that it's meaningful) is closer to copyleft minus an explicit license. Public domain means the creator will forego any rights, copyleft generally involves forgoing specific rights automatically via a license layered over the copyright, and kopyleft is precisely the same as a normal implicit copyright but with the implication that the rights, if questioned, will be similar to that granted in copyleft. This is why RMS felt the need to codify the terms of his version of a copyleft in the GPL: public domain allowed the code equivalent of the "dongs dongs dildoes dongs. love, hoopla" kind of thing, except far more legally damaging since one can be blamed for something that one didn't even know was happening. The GPL takes the good bits of public domain (anybody can change it, sell it, distribute it, etc) and removes some of the bad bits (you can't be blamed for any liabilities, no matter WHO it was who replaced the stop_being_skynet() function with a list of dirty words), and added some pragmatically disputed bits that people continue to have flamewars about to this day (viral nature, spiral energy, cocks).
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Template on February 20, 2009, 10:28:13 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:46:55 PM
The language (or my usage of it) is a bit tangled, so I want to draw a distinction between two usages of the word "should". I'm not saying "should = must" as in "Discordian stuff MUST be Kopyleft". I meant it more in the same way that someone might say "You shouldn't drive drunk." a proscription, not a rule.

Proscribe = prohibit.  A rule.
Prescribe = suggest.  "This is for you." <<== you want this one:  "prescription"

"Ⓚ All Rites Reversed - reprint what you like"
PD's copyright and license status is not a good example: it's got several trademark/copyright infringements within or something.

Creative Commons or GFDL or something would probably be a better choice since they're actual licenses.  Something with the Attribution requirement would be useful because we could track the history of essays after they pass through many (mental-digestive) tracts.

Not that I'd force anyone to license anything any particular way.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Requia ☣ on February 21, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

You do realize that you can't actually do that?

Once you grant me rights, i keep them forever unless you stipulate in the rights agreement conditions under which they can be taken away.  So I in fact retain the entire set of kopyleft rights.

Though you never actually stated what rights I have.  So I have no idea what I have the right to do with your work, except that I have some sort of right greater than or equal to fair use.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Requia ☣ on February 21, 2009, 12:00:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 21, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

You do realize that you can't actually do that?

Once you grant me rights, i keep them forever unless you stipulate in the rights agreement conditions under which they can be taken away.  So I in fact retain the entire set of kopyleft rights.

Though you never actually stated what rights I have.  So I have no idea what I have the right to do with your work, except that I have some sort of right greater than or equal to fair use.

I think he's saying that what he writes from here on out is not Kopyleft.

Also, I don't think it works so say "My whole body of work is Kopyleft except for those pieces I declare otherwise". I think that each piece is legally copyrighted the moment you create it, unless you specify otherwise. So if you want something to be Kopyleft or Creative Commons, you would have to specify it in writing for that specific piece.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 21, 2009, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
I think he's saying that what he writes from here on out is not Kopyleft.

This.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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?

2.  What the fuck does Zen Buddhism have to do with Discordianism?

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
I think the Kopyleft principle is alive and well in this community. For example, we create a lot of our own channels of entertainment. We have a magazine, a radio station (coming soon!), and about a zillion pdfs, meme bombs, and miscellaneous marginalia. None of this would be possible if we weren't comfortable taking, breaking, remixing and replaying each other's work.

With permission.  That's no different than Copyright.  Nobody HAS to charge to allow people to use their material under the "regular" system.

Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
I think about the Meme Bomb thread, and how we have probably a half dozen "best of" collections. It's now difficult and unimportant to determine who said what. The vast majority of the meme bombs aren't creditable to a specific author without some dilligent searching. Most commonly, the meme bombs are attributed to the community - an interesting concept, to be sure! Is this ideological socialism? Is our communication better when there aren't any pissing contests about who controls what ideas?

Please note that I'm not trying to start a thread about the merits and flaws of the copyright system, or whether artists should get paid for their work. I'm interested in discussing the notion that Everything Discordian Should Be (K). What's your take on it?

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?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:23:11 PM
Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 11:57:28 AM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

You do realize that you can't actually do that?

Once you grant me rights, i keep them forever unless you stipulate in the rights agreement conditions under which they can be taken away.  So I in fact retain the entire set of kopyleft rights.

Though you never actually stated what rights I have.  So I have no idea what I have the right to do with your work, except that I have some sort of right greater than or equal to fair use.

Equal to.

Unless you can prove you published/recorded it before he did.

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:25:18 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 04:09:21 PM
For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

Mine never was.

Fuck that.  I went through the stress that created my idea, I shat blood to put it into words, it's fucking MINE.

I'll almost always allow someone to use it, but they'd probably better ask, and they'd sure as fuck better credit me.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:26:18 PM
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 21, 2009, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on February 21, 2009, 04:57:24 PM
I think he's saying that what he writes from here on out is not Kopyleft.

This.

You can withdraw permission for (future) use of existing work, provided no contractual arrangements have been violated.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Pariah on February 21, 2009, 07:18:52 PM
Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 12:00:58 PM
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.

Sounds cool
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM
Heya! I brought my oar!

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

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 18, 2009, 04:34:23 AM
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.

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 18, 2009, 04:45:28 PM
...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...

Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2009, 02:56:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 03:50:41 PM
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>

Quote from: Dr Hoopla on February 20, 2009, 03:57:07 PM
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.

QuoteIndependent 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.

Quote from: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 20, 2009, 04:05:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Enki-][ on February 20, 2009, 04:05:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 20, 2009, 04:28:32 PM
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.

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
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)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: the last yatto on February 22, 2009, 09:19:28 AM
QuoteThe use of "Copyleft; All Wrongs Reserved" in 1976
i always thought of it like public domain but with a "safe" word
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 22, 2009, 02:35:50 PM
DrJon:

:mittens: -- good answers, thanks for clarifying.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 22, 2009, 02:42:47 PM
Quote from: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM
Heya! I brought my oar!

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

Quote from: Ratatosk on February 18, 2009, 04:34:23 AM
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 ;-)
Quote
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

Quote
QuoteThough we could add the PD.com addendum: "This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."
Quote
I wish that was legally binding.

So very, very much.

It's just as binding as K ;-)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2009, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM

Kopyleft is part and parcel of Discordianism...


RUBBISH!   :argh!:

Quote from: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM
because you guys aren't as screwed in the head as you purport to be.

RUBBISH!   :argh!:


Quote from: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM
(Edited because Unicoding sux)

RUBBISH!   :argh!:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2009, 05:53:26 PM
Quote from: Phineas T. Poxwattle on February 22, 2009, 02:35:50 PM
DrJon:

:mittens: -- good answers, thanks for clarifying.


Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Template on February 22, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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.

:x
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2009, 06:00:38 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 22, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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.

:x

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?
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on February 22, 2009, 06:04:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2009, 06:13:56 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on February 22, 2009, 06:04:36 PM
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!
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Reginald Ret on February 22, 2009, 11:11:11 PM
Quote from: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM
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!'
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on February 23, 2009, 01:11:08 AM
Quote from: drjon on February 21, 2009, 10:13:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: LMNO on February 23, 2009, 02:35:36 PM

Quote from: KC on February 21, 2009, 12:00:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cain on February 23, 2009, 02:43:54 PM
Interestingly, the BBC produced its list of the 100 greatest pieces of literature last week.  The average person has read 6 from the list.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: LMNO on February 23, 2009, 02:51:10 PM
Is that the one that inclues "The Da Vinci Code" and "Bridget Jones' Diary"?


I wonder about their definition of "great"...
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: hooplala on February 23, 2009, 02:53:39 PM
I just shot scalding coffee through my fucking nose.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cain on February 23, 2009, 02:54:00 PM
Yes, sadly.

I'll put the full list up in Literate Chaotic.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 23, 2009, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 23, 2009, 02:43:54 PM
Interestingly, the BBC produced its list of the 100 greatest pieces of literature last week.  The average person has read 6 from the list.

The only list I could find was from 2003: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/top100.shtml. Honestly, I wouldn't feel ashamed about only having read a few from that list. I've read about a quarter of them and don't feel like I would have missed any crucial intellectual development by skipping them.

Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cain on February 23, 2009, 07:35:11 PM
It appears the new list is an internet meme/forgery.  I should have researched, but foolishly I thought no-one would claim the BBC had done such a thing unless it had actually happened (fool me once...)

On the new one, I've read 25, but I've had a lot of spare time.  My sister is a literature student anyway, so I would agree that some of them are only worth reading so you can say you have read them, and not on their own merit.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on February 24, 2009, 01:02:29 AM
Betcha "Jude The Obscure" is on that list.

Thomas Hardy should be dug up and sodomized by diseased apes, for writing the most boring shit ever to waste paper.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cain on February 26, 2009, 12:31:30 PM
Thomas Hardy is like a hero around here.  Without him, we'd have no tourists at all.

That said, I wouldn't bother with his books either.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on March 01, 2009, 06:55:17 PM
Quote from: Broken AI on February 28, 2009, 10:12:43 PM

So basicaly, I love the idea of free forming, floating idea clusters, that meld through each other and converge different outcomes, from the overall datasphere of public domain / kopyleft workings, however, I'd be fucking pissed if anyone jacked any of my works and made more dollerpounds than I have from them.

:mrgreen:


I've been locked out of my adsense account for years, but if they send me a check, you're getting half of the two dollars. (http://hypertextpoetry.blogspot.com/2009/02/herasy.html)
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on March 02, 2009, 01:24:47 AM
The stuff my bot spits out tends to be far more coherent. This was actually the response generated by a first-order markov chain. My bot is third order, which (in theory) means that it should be three times as coherent. In reality, it generally means that it talks only a third of the time and is of approximately the same level of incoherence.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Torodung on March 02, 2009, 03:43:14 PM
I skimmed the thread, so this may be redundant.

The god Torodung, whom I serve, commands: "If you can make people pay you for shit, take the money and run."

Torodung speaks of a world where those with no "initiative," no will to impose upon others, are consoled by the fact that they will receive the "Magic Bag." The "Magic Bag" is full of shit.

I don't want to get caught "holding the bag." You may. (K)opyleft stuff if it suits your purpose (it is superior for wide dissemination, e.g.: The Brother's Grimm).

I would advise against opening the "Magic Bag" without noseplugs, however.  :fap:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on March 06, 2009, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: Broken AI on March 06, 2009, 11:05:19 AM
third order markov chain merged with random pd.com posts and mandelbrot music, some snagged st. syn images and some other stuff  awaaaaaaaaaaay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNuq4ShM6xM

go kopyleft go!



:D:D
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Idiot on March 14, 2009, 11:54:02 AM
Please note that Discordianism has embraced Capitalism these days.  Copyright is integral to our faith - deny it and you will be smote by whatever.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: the last yatto on March 15, 2009, 07:12:47 AM
Quote from: smokngoat on March 14, 2009, 11:54:02 AM
Please note that Discordianism has embraced Capitalism these days.  Copyright is integral to our faith - deny it and you will be smote by whatever.

:taco:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Cramulus on October 13, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
Against Copyleftism (and Cory Doctorow)

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/my-war-on-cory-doctorow-short-course.html
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 13, 2009, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: smokngoat on March 14, 2009, 11:54:02 AM
Please note that Discordianism has embraced Capitalism these days.  Copyright is integral to our faith - deny it and you will be smote by whatever.

What the fuck?   :lulz:
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Rococo Modem Basilisk on October 13, 2009, 08:53:11 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 13, 2009, 08:28:52 PM
Against Copyleftism (and Cory Doctorow)

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/my-war-on-cory-doctorow-short-course.html

Reading through, it seems more like a personal rant against Cory Doctorow. There are a number of problems with the posting. Some might be more obvious than others.

1) Doctorow's first books and short story collections were cc-licensed. I doubt that the boingboing blog has a 1:1 correspondence with his sci-fi audience -- I didn't know of the blog until after I read several of his books.
2) This is the internet. People don't have to travel across the world to spam. A lot of things that are worth buying will be reproduced and travel by themselves, particularly if reproduction is encouraged, and plenty of people spend enough of their free time on the net to spam their works without extra effort. The 'traveling salesman' bit therefore seems like an obvious strawman, or at best the retort of someone who doesn't use computers often.
3) "Remove DRM" isn't the same thing as "give away free". This kind of mental equivalence is particularly amusing since DRM is generally cracked quite quickly -- DRM-enabled stuff is pirated just as much as non-DRM-enabled stuff. Copyleft just tacitly supports the practice, rather than demonizing it.

I figure that the author would have more luck convincing people if he didn't rely upon hotbutton terms like "cult" and terms that used to be hotbutton a half-century ago like "communist" in order to pursuade people. It seems like a bit of a crutch.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Requia ☣ on October 13, 2009, 09:41:56 PM
There are other issues too, he mentions that some bands have had little success with a Doctorow style business model, but most bands fail to make a living period, and he can't provide figures for how many succeed with each given model (I wouldn't expect much difference, most of the smaller bands I listen to subsist on live performances, not CD sales, but it could be significant for a few).

His second point (giving away books is not a loss leader) may be true for books, I'm more familiar with give away models in comics.  However: A) The physical book has a value above and beyond the information itself, since some people will want a physical copy.  B) A substantially large online following means contributing ad revenue (not enough to live off on your own probably, the best I've seen is maybe 60 dollars a day). C) Its called merchandising, the merchandise doesn't even have to relate strongly to the work in question,  Jeph Jacques basically uses Questionable Content as a way to get free ads for his T-Shirt sales for example.

His third point, that giving away books damages publishers and bookstores:  Partly true, Again point A above, physical books still have value.  Also fuck them.  You are not entitled to a business model being successful.  I'll care about bookstore corporations just as soon as all those tech jobs I was promised when I was in high school come back from India.  Also, Amazon.com, both in digital and physical book sales, probably does far more damage to brick and mortar book stores.

His fourth point, that that the model requires people to rely on lecture fees: No, it requires them to rely on anything else.  Lecture fees are a good source of income, but there are other options.  Like selling physical copies of your books to people who want them.  (Seriously, people will never stop hoarding, its part of human nature, there will always be a market for physical books to satisfy our instincts).  Secondly, the idea that not all authors would be successful on the lecture circuit still lacks a comparison of how many authors fail today.  The figure I've heard is 9/10 published books lose money, more barely break even on printing fees, and that doesn't include the stuff that never gets published in the first place.

fifth point: Yes Doctorow relies on talking about giving things away, That works for him.  Sam Harris talks about how we should nuke the middle east, that works for him too.  Other people I read have never given a lecture in their life.

sixth point: that tips are not equal to the pay from book sales.  You get more readers/listeners by giving away than sales.  A lot of those people are horrible freeloaders who will never give *anybody* another dime, (in other words, people with library cards).  You can't assume you'd have a 1 to 1 relationship on book sales versus people who read your stuff when its free.

seventh point: giving stuff away is a luxury of those with a different source of income.   Totally true!  Every last person whose stuff I read for free either has a second source of income, or used to have a second source of income (or a large savings account) while they established themselves.  However, thats not very different from the traditional model, there's a reason 'starving artist' is a cliche.  Again, comparison in success rates are needed.

eighth point: again, exactly right, people who give things away are (with the exception of television) self employed, that means doing your own marketing work.  Being a small business owner kindof sucks like that.

Holy shit this thing is long, the rest looks like generic rants about Doctorow in the specific though, so I'm not going to address it.


tl;dr: Making a living off of your art/writing is a pain in the ass, regardless of the business model.
Title: Re: "If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"
Post by: Doktor Howl on June 08, 2023, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2009, 06:00:38 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on February 22, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 21, 2009, 06:22:10 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 16, 2009, 07:23:51 PM
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.

:x

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?

Bumping for facebook sig.