Ok, so Rumkle pointed out that there is a store here in Melbourne that will print magazines for free if they like them, and then sell them and split the profits with the people behind the magazine...
So I was wondering what intermittens crew think.
Would it be a good idea if I can see if this guy will print our magazine and sell them here in aus for profit, with half those profits going back into pd.com?
Or would it be against all that's good and holy to sell kopyleft work?
I also would like to point out that the price they sell most of their magazines at is $5 or less (Australian), not sure how they work that stuff out though.
over here in the states I had planned to use this guy Danny Chaoflux's small distribution press in Oregon (once he gets it set up). http://r6xx.com/
Failing that, all our scribus templates are formatted for magcloud.com (http://magcloud.com) - a print-on-demand magazine printer. They're expensive though - $0.20 per page. Can you get a per-page rate, inc. shipping?
The idea being that the editor can sell issues if he or she would like to. For my IM#1, I was gonna split my profits with Telarus (who put many hours into layout).
lol profits
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
over here in the states I had planned to use this guy Danny Chaoflux's small distribution press in Oregon (once he gets it set up). http://r6xx.com/
Failing that, all our scribus templates are formatted for magcloud.com (http://magcloud.com) - a print-on-demand magazine printer. They're expensive though - $0.20 per page. Can you get a per-page rate, inc. shipping?
The idea being that the editor can sell issues if he or she would like to. For my IM#1, I was gonna split my profits with Telarus (who put many hours into layout).
lol profits
Err... the guy prints it for free apparently, and sells them themselves and splits half the profits with well, whoever I suppose I tell them to give it to, though I imagine it might have to be me.
But in any case, like I said, my idea is if this thing makes money at all, to put it back into pd.com, I think that would be the fairest thing now wouldn't you agree?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
over here in the states I had planned to use this guy Danny Chaoflux's small distribution press in Oregon (once he gets it set up). http://r6xx.com/
Failing that, all our scribus templates are formatted for magcloud.com (http://magcloud.com) - a print-on-demand magazine printer. They're expensive though - $0.20 per page. Can you get a per-page rate, inc. shipping?
The idea being that the editor can sell issues if he or she would like to. For my IM#1, I was gonna split my profits with Telarus (who put many hours into layout).
lol profits
Actually though, I will ask and see what kind of deals can be made for this...
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 01:24:32 PM
But in any case, like I said, my idea is if this thing makes money at all, to put it back into pd.com, I think that would be the fairest thing now wouldn't you agree?
I think it should be up to the editor what they do with their issues and any revenue potentially generated from them.
Telarus and I put a
lot of time into Issue 1, and I know I've invested at least 20 hours (so far) into my Lesser Poop issue. Personally, I'd like to be the first one to profit off my labor. :p
Hmmm... I don't agree or disagree with what your saying Cram, but I kinda see things getting sticky here with this idea already...
I mean, yes, its probably fair for editors and such to make a cut, but what about people who also submitted and provided articles for the issues?
Shouldn't they get their slice too?
My proposal means that money made goes back into PD where everyone here will benefit from intermittens profits, and we don't have to worry about who is owed what for what issue...
It seems to split things on a per issue/editor idea will make things rather tricky, because it requires keeping track of what issue is sold and such, something I really can't be bothered with.
I'd like to see mass producing of intermittens that can be easily distributed without having to worry about our personal cost and charged at a small fee that goes back into making better intermittens and supporting the discordian community.
But yeah, I do understand where you are coming from Cram, you put a lot of work into making these for very little monetary reward, and as producers of work you should get a slice...
But yeah, this is all going to get complicated fast if people are going to be asking for their slice of the pie as exactly as they should be getting from it according to the way you propose splitting the profits...
But yeah, I'll see what deals I can find to see if intermittens can be produced on the cheap and for mass marketing for personal sales...
What?
You decided you were going to use my work to make money without me getting a cut? This is fucking bullshit. I worked on the presumption that Intermittens is free and that no-one profits from it, and that if any profits were made, they would go into improved distribution or site maintenence only.
Its bad enough I don't even have a job, but now to have my work used to make money for others without my say so? Absolute fucking crap. If this is the way Intermittens is going, then my work is no longer going to be featured. At all.
Deep breath. I don't appreciate being yelled at while we try to discuss a problem/solution.
I hear what you're saying. Sooner or later we were going to have to have a conversation about dolla dolla bills y'all. I also hope that we can all reach an accord without there being too much tension - recently the entire irreality.net community disintegrated (in part) because of community money issues.
The first thing to put on the table is that no issue of Intermittens is going to make a ton of cash. Straight up. If I print out some copies and happen to sell them while I'm at a book fair or something, I don't expect to ever make more than twenty bucks. Because the PDFs are free, there's little reason to buy a physical copy. If you like nice glossy magazine pages, or you're an organization, it makes a little bit of sense. But this isn't set up to be profitable because we're also giving them away for free. So I don't want us to get too hung up on where the millions of dollars will go, because in all likelihood the total revenue of all Intermittens for all time will be under fifty bucks. If one issue makes a lot of cash, it will be because somebody is marketing it really hard.
I also want to point out - and we've discussed this before - that Intermittens is not exclusively PD property. There are at least two issues (that I know of) being developed by people that don't frequently post here.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 03:37:18 PM
Hmmm... I don't agree or disagree with what your saying Cram, but I kinda see things getting sticky here with this idea already...
I mean, yes, its probably fair for editors and such to make a cut, but what about people who also submitted and provided articles for the issues?
Shouldn't they get their slice too?
In a magazine organized by to a commercial business model, yes, writers would definitely be paid. Intermittens is composed nearly entirely of public domain and creative-commons (or some form of copyleft) material. When an author submits something, they know that they lose a degree of control over that piece by releasing it. People in "the wild" can photocopy, modify, and redistribute Intermittens. This would be illegal if we were protecting our individual copyrights.
My personal philosophy on the matter (and I know not everybody shares this) is that if you can profit off a work I've marked Kopyleft, that's fine with me. Go ahead and sell my Intermittens at shows, use it to pay for beer. As long as you're not making a book of Cram's writings and selling it with your name on it, or making hundreds of dollars off my sweat, I'm not going to get bent out of shape. Just like how I can sell Lewis Carroll's work - it's in the unprotected public domain. A few authors don't like giving away those rights and have decided to not submit further stuff for Intermittens. (like Hoopla) That's a reasonable response - if you're not comfortable with releasing your work, don't submit it!
But that's not for everybody. And I know that there are exceptions where I'd be furious-pissed if people started selling my writing. Roger, for one, copyrights his work. I have a few of Roger's pieces in Intermittens #1, so I obtained permission to reprint (and sell) his work within the publication. He said he was okay with it as I don't chop it up and I credit him properly.
One of my central concerns is that this is not intended to be a for-profit magazine with a rigidly hierarchial editorial staff. I'm not the boss. Intermittens is for anyone to make. If we start imposing rules about who can profit and how we finance it, we need a layer of bureaucracy that's not currently present. I mean, if there's a bank account that's accepting the revenue from the magazine, whose name is on that bank account? Who gets to decide how the money is spent? Answering these questions
will change the nature of the magazine. And I don't think that's necessary until the magazine proves to be profitable. No need to shoot each other dead for theft when no money has changed hands.
QuoteI'd like to see mass producing of intermittens
This requires funding
first.
QuoteBut yeah, I do understand where you are coming from Cram, you put a lot of work into making these for very little monetary reward, and as producers of work you should get a slice...
But yeah, this is all going to get complicated fast if people are going to be asking for their slice of the pie as exactly as they should be getting from it according to the way you propose splitting the profits...
Agreed. Nobody wants to feel screwed. Nobody is trying to screw anybody else. Many of us are poor. Some of us are entrepeneurs. I don't have all the answers, but there's gotta be a way for us to reach good model. We're making this up as we go along.
Yeah, you're only trying to make money from my work while I'm ass-broke. No big deal. I should just calm down or something, right?
Fuck this and fuck you if that's the attitude you are going to take. Remove all my work from copies of Intermittens. None of my work has permission to be used for publication anymore, by anyone. That goes for all previous issues too. I am no longer associated with this project until I am assured that profits will not be going to any individual for my work.
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2009, 04:32:02 PM
Yeah, you're only trying to make money from my work while I'm ass-broke. No big deal. I should just calm down or something, right?
Fuck this and fuck you if that's the attitude you are going to take. Remove all my work from copies of Intermittens. None of my work has permission to be used for publication anymore, by anyone. That goes for all previous issues too. I am no longer associated with this project until I am assured that profits will not be going to any individual for my work.
I was about to reply, but never mind. apparently, discussing this is too much of an emotional landmine.
if somebody else wants to try to figure this out, be my guest. But I'm not going to stick around and get shit on and cursed at for trying to facilitate discussion.
Oh fuck off. You're talking about using my efforts and work to make money for yourself and I'm expected to - what? Be all polite and shit?
So go ahead and pat yourself on the back for being the "bigger man" and walking away or whatever. Then you get get back to discussing - emotionlessly of course, god forbid someone get angry! - exactly how to use other peoples work to make money for the editors.
Intermittens, as a free thing of stuff we enjoy, put out so others can get into it too, is a good thing. If ANY profit is possible for future bits, I think it's something that should get ironed out before they get released. This is a good discussion to be had for the future, since good stuff is being produced. At the same time, I've known a lot of you for a while, and I seriously doubt anyone here is about grabbing someone else's work for a quick buck.
For stuff slready out there, printed copies being sold at cost, or any profit going back to maintaining the PD like Cain mentioned, is the way to go IMHO. Anything else is souring the creative engine that spawned it in the first place.
I have little of my own content in Intermittens projects, so disregard this if you feel that's grounds for such.
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
Oh fuck off. You're talking about using my efforts and work to make money for yourself and I'm expected to - what? Be all polite and shit?
If you want to actually discuss a mutually agreeable conclusion, yes.
If you'd prefer to demonize me for
attempting to talk about cash, I'll just go back to swimming in the pool of money I've made by stealing everybody's ideas :lol:
(I hope that came across as a joke)
(http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3571/dollarbill.jpg)
In the town where I was born,
Lived a man who sailed to sea,
And he told us of his life,
In the land of submarines,
So we sailed on to the sun,
Till we found the sea of green,
And we lived beneath the waves,
In our yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
And our friends are all aboard,
Many more of them live next door,
And the band begins to play.
(Trumpets play)
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
(Full speed ahead, Mr. Parker, full speed ahead!
Full speed over here, sir!
Action stations! Action stations!
Aye, aye, sir, fire!
Captain! Captain!)
As we live a life of ease
Every one of us has all we need,(has all we need)
Sky of blue, and sea of green,(sky of blue and sea of green)
in our yellow(in our yellow) submarine.(submarine) ( Hahaha! )
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
(fading)
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine,
We all live in a yellow submarine,
yellow submarine, yellow submarine.
....
Sorry, call it inspired.
But seriously...
I'm almost sorry for bringing this up now...
But I suppose its good to get this discussed now before more shit hits the proverbial fan...
I'm only going to do what the majority thinks is right, as so far, I've really had nothing top do with intermittens besides wanting to get it spread down here and if a buck can be made will go back to whomever rightfully owns it.
I figured it would best be given to faust or such, since he pays for the board, I'm sure it won't go by unappreciated...
I can't imagine a hell of a lot of money being made from this, I figured since it was free to do it would be worth a gamble you know, since theres really nothing to lose on my part?
Whatever money is made would be worth like $23 us there I'd imagine and its hardly worth crying over...
As far as I interpret kopyleft, anyone can print and sell any any issue. Not just the editor. Personally, I'm fine with that.
I'd like to print and sell Intermittens as a collection, when more issues are out... but at a not-for-profit price. I just want to see it out there. I suspect a lot of people want to see it out there.
I would propose that it be made clear that future issues of Intermittens are either kopyleft, meaning anyone can redistribute them without restrictions, or they are Creative Commons, or they are traditionally copyrighted with rights reverting to the authors, which IMO severely restricts what people can do.
How much of the art used in the existing Intermittens could be legally disputed if they were printed for profit?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2009, 04:41:03 PM
Oh fuck off. You're talking about using my efforts and work to make money for yourself and I'm expected to - what? Be all polite and shit?
If you want to actually discuss a mutually agreeable conclusion, yes.
If you'd prefer to demonize me for attempting to talk about cash, I'll just go back to swimming in the pool of money I've made by stealing everybody's ideas :lol:
(I hope that came across as a joke)
Hey, guess what asshole? I'm broke. Actually, I'm in debt. I get barely enough money from the government to see to my needs (especially since my oh so loving parents take over 50% for rent) and a little extra on the side for a writing gig I sweated blood to even be considered for.
And nothing else.
So go ahead and keep joking about swimming pools of money. I'm practically drowning here, my computer (which I need for that writing gig and to apply for over 90% of the jobs I find) is falling apart, my wardrobe is falling apart, I cant afford a social life or to even take my girlfriend on a date, and any extra cash would help, but you know, laugh it up. Poverty and ripping off those with next to nothing in the first place is lulzy or something, right?
Cain, I'm not sure that's really fair. If Intermittens is truly kopyleft, that means that you, also, are free to have it printed and sell it for profit. No one has an exclusive right to do it, so why yell at Cram for being the issue up?
This actually should get worked through.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2009, 05:44:25 PM
Cain, I'm not sure that's really fair. If Intermittens is truly kopyleft, that means that you, also, are free to have it printed and sell it for profit.
Oh? And how am I going to fund this printing off and making money scheme? I don't think China is currently buying peoples debt anymore, and shiny stones and leaves are apparently not legal tender.
The point is absurdly simple. If money is being made off something I have contributed to, then I am due a cut of that money. End of discussion. Or else, don't include my work. Ever.
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2009, 05:52:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2009, 05:44:25 PM
Cain, I'm not sure that's really fair. If Intermittens is truly kopyleft, that means that you, also, are free to have it printed and sell it for profit.
Oh? And how am I going to fund this printing off and making money scheme? I don't think China is currently buying peoples debt anymore, and shiny stones and leaves are apparently not legal tender.
The point is absurdly simple. If money is being made off something I have contributed to, then I am due a cut of that money. End of discussion. Or else, don't include my work. Ever.
I don't know how you're going to get money for any venture, but that's beside the point.
If you want a cut of profits from anything you write, never make anything kopyleft. That's your right. If your work in Intermittens isn't kopyleft, this discussion is moot.
Ah oh... well this is some thread...
Ok, first off... let's be clear. Kopyleft is not a legal anything. It is meaningless except to Discordians. There are many creative commons licenses, Kopyleft is not a legal license. Traditionally, among Discordians Kopyleft has meant that the stuff is in the wild and good to go for whatever purpose. Kopyleft work has been sold by others, consider Loompanics or Steve Jackson Games or St. Syn, all three published 'for profit' versions of the PD, which they did mostly editing/formatting work to. As far as I know, none of the money from any of those versions went back to Kerry, Mal, Camden etc.
Secondly, there is no legal avenue to say "Oh I gave you permission to print that, but now, post-production I revoke the permission"... unless you're going to go to court, claim that Kopyleft is non-existent and therefore all Kopyleft material falls back to Copyright. Of course, even copyrighted, once permission has been given, it cannot be revoked. If permission was given... and there was a 'don't sell it' clause, then that's one thing... if there was no discussion before now, at best an author could sue to get part of the profits.
Of course, going to court to fight for that would cost far more than Intermittens will ever likely net.
Just so we're all clear on where past issues/content sits.
-----------------------------------------
In my opinion, selling Intermittens for profit is silly. It's Discordian diarrhea and while I think its good stuff... I would be pretty disappointed if I paid money to read it. If you print copies and charge to cover printing... or have a on-demand printer, that seems reasonable... but selling them for profit? They seem much more like the "Here have something free to read while you're on the commute today" kind of publications.
Cram, I don't care what you choose to do. My material is Kopyleft and free to buy, sell or steal... However, I do think that putting money on the table, for work that's been voluntary on the part of everyone, will probably bring Intermittens to a calamitous end in short order. AT the very least for existing issues of Intermittens, I'm not really sure it would be fair to sell them, since authors didn't have that information when submitting content to those issues (However, Kopyleft certainly would give strong support for it not being 'wrong')
--------------------------------------------
On the other hand, there is definately enough creative energy here, that we could probably produce a for-profit publication of some sort. Either as the future state of Intermittens or as a new product, based on our experiences with getting Intermittens off the ground. However, I think this should be clear before work is started. That way, authors can write content that would make sense or provide value to the purchasing public, rather than charging them for half formed forum posts (like a few of my pieces appear).
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 21, 2009, 06:21:01 PM
Ah oh... well this is some thread...
Ok, first off... let's be clear. Kopyleft is not a legal anything. It is meaningless except to Discordians. There are many creative commons licenses, Kopyleft is not a legal license. Traditionally, among Discordians Kopyleft has meant that the stuff is in the wild and good to go for whatever purpose. Kopyleft work has been sold by others, consider Loompanics or Steve Jackson Games or St. Syn, all three published 'for profit' versions of the PD, which they did mostly editing/formatting work to. As far as I know, none of the money from any of those versions went back to Kerry, Mal, Camden etc.
Secondly, there is no legal avenue to say "Oh I gave you permission to print that, but now, post-production I revoke the permission"... unless you're going to go to court, claim that Kopyleft is non-existent and therefore all Kopyleft material falls back to Copyright. Of course, even copyrighted, once permission has been given, it cannot be revoked. If permission was given... and there was a 'don't sell it' clause, then that's one thing... if there was no discussion before now, at best an author could sue to get part of the profits.
Of course, going to court to fight for that would cost far more than Intermittens will ever likely net.
Just so we're all clear on where past issues/content sits.
-----------------------------------------
In my opinion, selling Intermittens for profit is silly. It's Discordian diarrhea and while I think its good stuff... I would be pretty disappointed if I paid money to read it. If you print copies and charge to cover printing... or have a on-demand printer, that seems reasonable... but selling them for profit? They seem much more like the "Here have something free to read while you're on the commute today" kind of publications.
Cram, I don't care what you choose to do. My material is Kopyleft and free to buy, sell or steal... However, I do think that putting money on the table, for work that's been voluntary on the part of everyone, will probably bring Intermittens to a calamitous end in short order. AT the very least for existing issues of Intermittens, I'm not really sure it would be fair to sell them, since authors didn't have that information when submitting content to those issues (However, Kopyleft certainly would give strong support for it not being 'wrong')
--------------------------------------------
On the other hand, there is definately enough creative energy here, that we could probably produce a for-profit publication of some sort. Either as the future state of Intermittens or as a new product, based on our experiences with getting Intermittens off the ground. However, I think this should be clear before work is started. That way, authors can write content that would make sense or provide value to the purchasing public, rather than charging them for half formed forum posts (like a few of my pieces appear).
I don't think it's a sin to pay for Discordian diarrhea, after all, I paid for three copies of the principia discordia, the original Discordian diarrhea.
I want to throw out there that I am really not interested in working on any for-profit collaborative projects because IMO the legal and financial logistics introduce an element of tension and expectation that I don't find personally conducive to my enjoyment. Strife is all very well and good, but I prefer to keep it out of my creative life. I suspect that a for-profit version of Intermittens would be a death knell for the project, for a number of reasons. I don't personally see anything wrong with anyone printing the existing ones up and trying to sell them for enough to cover costs, but this was a volunteer project for everyone, and that means that expecting compensation for the time you've put into editing it is kind of silly. IMO.
For that matter, expecting to make any money at all from printing a zine of any kind is pretty... well... I'll call it romantic.
Ok... so, I'm wondering... What are the "Rights" involved here?
"legally", or whatever you want to call it, it's a creative commons kopyleft work, and it free to distribute and produce.
Now, anyone that produces this work and then wants to trade/sell/give away it can do that, and the next person who trades/buys/received the work gets all the same rights as the first person, correct?
Or are they bound by some sort of legal contract that they can't make a profit off other peoples work even if its free for everyone to do with what they want?
Or have I missed something entirely here?
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2009, 06:48:54 PM
I want to throw out there that I am really not interested in working on any for-profit collaborative projects because IMO the legal and financial logistics introduce an element of tension and expectation that I don't find personally conducive to my enjoyment. Strife is all very well and good, but I prefer to keep it out of my creative life. I suspect that a for-profit version of Intermittens would be a death knell for the project, for a number of reasons. I don't personally see anything wrong with anyone printing the existing ones up and trying to sell them for enough to cover costs, but this was a volunteer project for everyone, and that means that expecting compensation for the time you've put into editing it is kind of silly. IMO.
For that matter, expecting to make any money at all from printing a zine of any kind is pretty... well... I'll call it romantic.
In reality, I doubt this will make any money at all, but as far as I see it, its a chance to get mags made for free and in exchange for the service they sell it and split the profits.
I can't possibly lose, and so if anything is made out of it, I want to share the money fairly.
That's *if* I do this at all.
Or *if* I don't just go ahead and do it anyway and keep all the money for myself...
I mean, *I* can do that right?
No, I wouldn't want to do that, but I don't want this community fighting and bickering over what may be meager pickings of something that I'm only throwing out as an idea...
But I understand it wouldn't be right if I suddenly made a hit magazine and it became an underground success and made a few thousand dollars that people I know that made the mag possible shouldn't see that come back to them in some way...
But lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
Seriously, who do you think will want to *buy* our crap?
im not all that familiar with intermittens but i think if you were to print it it should be printed by PD and all the money going to simply the production of it, making it so no one profits from production.
on that note, i guess i should read intermittens.
Coming soon: How Lys Accidently (?) Killed Intermittens FOREVER. :?
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 06:59:30 PM
But lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
Seriously, who do you think will want to *buy* our crap?
"They may be Pink, but their money is still green"
Is there an "At cost" option? They sell it for what the printer charges, no cut for the PD end? (Albeit with a big "Find this, and MORE, for FREE at: " on it.)
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 07:17:58 PM
Coming soon: How Lys Accidently (?) Killed Intermittens FOREVER. :?
typical.
It makes sense that if cain does not want his material distributed for a profit (or without him having a cut) then that should be edited from whichever issue is being sold. Its his right as a contributer to do as he pleases with his material.
It would be really shit if this caused problems down the line for intermittens (as group activities involving any money at all always do) and I really don't want something like this to drive away cain.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 06:36:20 PM
I don't think it's a sin to pay for Discordian diarrhea, after all, I paid for three copies of the principia discordia, the original Discordian diarrhea.
I don't think its a sin, I would just have been disappointed to purchase Intermittens as a magazine... its a great free zine, its not a great publication for sale... in my opinion.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 06:49:53 PM
Ok... so, I'm wondering... What are the "Rights" involved here?
"legally", or whatever you want to call it, it's a creative commons kopyleft work, and it free to distribute and produce.
Now, anyone that produces this work and then wants to trade/sell/give away it can do that, and the next person who trades/buys/received the work gets all the same rights as the first person, correct?
Or are they bound by some sort of legal contract that they can't make a profit off other peoples work even if its free for everyone to do with what they want?
Or have I missed something entirely here?
Nope, as far as I can tell, that's where we are. Kopyleft material, based on the preexisting examples, appears to be free to trade/sell/give away and all of the rights go along with it. There is no legal contract or anything else. In fact, I'd say the situation is very similar to the GPL in this case.
With the GPL, all of us may contribute code to a project. Anyone can make use of that code for the project, or another project. Any of this code can be freely distributed (as long as its under the GPL) and it can be sold (as long as its under the GPL). I think Kopyleft is probably similar. Anyone could take anything kopyleft and put it in any publication. That publication could be given away, or sold as long as the material remained Kopyleft. The person who bought the book could then turn around and take chunks of it, make their own publication and sell it too etc etc etc
Personally, I think we should remain focused on producing Issues for digital release. Once we have some idea of how many readers, etc maybe we could consider publishing them through an on-demand printer etc. I think worrying about money and paper publication now may be a distraction that will slow down production.
In the end, for me, it boils down to what the hell I'm doing here. Do I participate in GASMS or Intermittens to make a buck, or do I do it for fun. For me, I do it for fun, so all the stuff I volunteer here, is for fun. Now, I'm also interested in being a writer and making money so I can leave Corporate Hell. For me, though, I try to keep these two things separate. Something here might inspire something I think is worth money... but in that case, I don't publish it here.
Quote from: Faust on April 21, 2009, 07:52:24 PM
It makes sense that if cain does not want his material distributed for a profit (or without him having a cut) then that should be edited from whichever issue is being sold. Its his right as a contributer not to to do as he pleases with his material.
It would be really shit if this caused problems down the line for intermittens (as group activities involving any money at all always do) and I really don't want something like this to drive away cain.
I think that certianly would be the nice thing to do. I do think, however, that we should all keep in mind the potency of Kopyleft and what it really means. At this point, anyone could reproduce Cain's works from an existing issue of Intermittens and sell it and never tell him... you can't un-public domain content. However, since we all have to deal with each other, I personally would try to honor any request from any contributor if I were gonna sell Intermittens Issues.
All in all though, we should probably come to some sort of consensus about what is and isn't cool for Intermittens as a project. Also, if you want to control what you author... do not release it under Public Domain... or Kopyleft.
EDIT: One option we could consider is either a copyright, Public Domain or Kopyleft note at the bottom of each article in a given issue. With that in place, any copyright material would be subject to whatever agreements there were around Intermittens.
Personally, I'd just as soon continue with Kopyleft/Free and focus on writing interesting stuff that spags will read 5 years from now or 50 years from now and say "Oh, so thats what some Discordians were thinking in 2010".
as said earlier, any issue that the editor would like to sell should be stated before the issue is even started.
My intent ITT was to discuss these issues and put the cards on the table. I expected that money would be a touchy issue, but I did not anticipate any of my friends cursing me out for bringing it up. So far, no money has changed hands, so nobody has gotten screwed. I would love to talk this rational and calmly. We will not arrive at ANY solution otherwise.
as I said - "Nobody wants to feel screwed. Nobody is trying to screw anybody else. Many of us are poor. Some of us are entrepeneurs. I don't have all the answers, but there's gotta be a way for us to reach a good model. We're making this up as we go along."
For the record, it's never been my intention to sell anybody's work if it would piss them off. Telarus and I started to format IM for magcloud.com, but have been too distracted to really get it set up. Just so it doesn't seem like I'm keeping secrets, when we approached that hurdle, I was going to contact all the writers and make sure stuff was cool. I don't have a problem AT ALL with sending people some cash if I'm going to be making cash.
Anyway--
I think most of our dissonance is stemming from the lack of initial copyright agreements. Are writers submitting stuff under a Noncommerical license? Share alike? Public Domain? Attribution? If each editor had declared license at the outset, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Many people have marked their work as Kopyleft, but this is clearly not adequate (in fact - we probably shouldn't even use that word anymore because it has caused so much trouble). Moving forward, editors will have to be explicit about the issue's license: copyright, some form of creative-commons, or public domain.
In my opinion, the editor should make the ultimate decision what the issue's license will be. If the writers aren't comfortable with that license, they shouldn't submit to that issue. If the editor is profiting, I expect some of the writers will want a slice and they can work it out in private. The details would be established on an issue-by-issue basis. Content which is under a different license than the rest of the issue should be marked (like if you copyright your issue but some of the art is still in the public domain)
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 08:17:37 PM
In my opinion, the editor should make the ultimate decision what the issue's license will be. If the writers aren't comfortable with that license, they shouldn't submit to that issue. If the editor is profiting, I expect some of the writers will want a slice and they can work it out in private. The details would be established on an issue-by-issue basis. Content which is under a different license than the rest of the issue should be marked (like if you copyright your issue but some of the art is still in the public domain)
Correct fucking motorcycle, as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Faust on April 21, 2009, 08:12:02 PM
as said earlier, any issue that the editor would like to sell should be stated before the issue is even started.
Absolutely.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 08:17:37 PM
My intent ITT was to discuss these issues and put the cards on the table. I expected that money would be a touchy issue, but I did not anticipate any of my friends cursing me out for bringing it up. So far, no money has changed hands, so nobody has gotten screwed. I would love to talk this rational and calmly. We will not arrive at ANY solution otherwise.
as I said - "Nobody wants to feel screwed. Nobody is trying to screw anybody else. Many of us are poor. Some of us are entrepeneurs. I don't have all the answers, but there's gotta be a way for us to reach a good model. We're making this up as we go along."
For the record, it's never been my intention to sell anybody's work if it would piss them off. Telarus and I started to format IM for magcloud.com, but have been too distracted to really get it set up. Just so it doesn't seem like I'm keeping secrets, when we approached that hurdle, I was going to contact all the writers and make sure stuff was cool. I don't have a problem AT ALL with sending people some cash if I'm going to be making cash.
Anyway--
I think most of our dissonance is stemming from the lack of initial copyright agreements. Are writers submitting stuff under a Noncommerical license? Share alike? Public Domain? Attribution? If each editor had declared license at the outset, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Many people have marked their work as Kopyleft, but this is clearly not adequate (in fact - we probably shouldn't even use that word anymore because it has caused so much trouble). Moving forward, editors will have to be explicit about the issue's license: copyright, some form of creative-commons, or public domain.
In my opinion, the editor should make the ultimate decision what the issue's license will be. If the writers aren't comfortable with that license, they shouldn't submit to that issue. If the editor is profiting, I expect some of the writers will want a slice and they can work it out in private. The details would be established on an issue-by-issue basis. Content which is under a different license than the rest of the issue should be marked (like if you copyright your issue but some of the art is still in the public domain)
That's one way to try it, but if every issue is under a different license I can see things getting really bizarre at some point in the future. Further, and this is digging into Copyright memory so bear with me, I think there are two different copyright issues here.
1. What is piece of content X licensed under (Copyright, Kopyleft, Public Domain) ?
2. What is Intermittens
n licensed under (Copyright, Kopyleft, Public Domain) ?
So, lets say that Nigel and P3nt and I submit content for Cram's next issue, P3nt used Creative Commons, Nigel used Kopyleft and I released under Public Domain. Cramulus though, still has to figure out how to license HIS work... the Issue of Intermittens with the content layout etc. Cram could copyright the Issue, but anyone could still use the content created by P3nt, Nigel and I under the license that they were released with. I think the only possibility of contention is if some material is Copyright and The Editor wants to make a profit and the Copyright holder wants a cut. In short, authors should place their work under the license that most closely aligns with their philosophy and desires re the content. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR CONTENT, copyright it. That makes this a lot easier.
This means that the editor of any given issue has full control over the issue (copyright) and can sell it. IF some content is listed as Copyright and the editor chose to use it, it would be the editor's responsibility to get permission for selling Copyright content. If the content is Creative Commons, Kopyleft etc. the the Author has waived their right to have any say in the matter.
This makes the whole thing quite simple. If we all specify our license preference as authors, then editors will KNOW what they can and can't do with that content. If they want the freedom to sell issues for personal profit, they can choose not to use copyright work, or to work out something with copyright holders. If they aren't concerned about profit, or selling it... then they can select copyright content if they want... but should identify its copyright status in the publication.
Well, everything anyone writes is copyrighted by default unless they specifically say otherwise. I won't be releasing anything kopyleft because I don't care for the idea of someone slicing, dicing, mincing, and then copyrighting and profiting off my work. That doesn't mean I wouldn't give away or sell reprinting rights to someone even with the knowledge that it may profit them... it just means I'm keeping the right to make that decision.
I also think that anyone who assembled kopyleft work into an issue of Intermittens (or any other publication) and then copyrighted the publication would be doing irreparable damage not only to their own reputation, but to the concept of kopyleft itself.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2009, 09:19:34 PM
I also think that anyone who assembled kopyleft work into an issue of Intermittens (or any other publication) and then copyrighted the publication would be doing irreparable damage not only to their own reputation, but to the concept of kopyleft itself.
Some groups that have done editions of the PD have copyrighted the overall work. I mean, technically, even something like Illuminatus! is a copyright work with Kopyleft content inside it.
Overall though, I agree. It's something that technically you 'could do', however, its something that would probably damage your Discordian street cred.
Shades of Steve Jackson ITT :lulz:
"One time I sold this HUGE public domain work. I swear it must have been this big...!"
\
(http://pics.livejournal.com/henwy/pic/000t01r2)
yeah, it gets bigger every time you tell the story, Steve...
I'm with Cain here.
That is all.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 09:29:37 PM
"One time I sold this HUGE public domain work. I swear it must have been this big...!"
\
(http://pics.livejournal.com/henwy/pic/000t01r2)
yeah, it gets bigger every time you tell the story, Steve...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Payne on April 21, 2009, 09:34:22 PM
I'm with Cain here.
That is all.
Then make sure your work is Copyright.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 21, 2009, 09:27:03 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2009, 09:19:34 PM
I also think that anyone who assembled kopyleft work into an issue of Intermittens (or any other publication) and then copyrighted the publication would be doing irreparable damage not only to their own reputation, but to the concept of kopyleft itself.
Some groups that have done editions of the PD have copyrighted the overall work. I mean, technically, even something like Illuminatus! is a copyright work with Kopyleft content inside it.
Overall though, I agree. It's something that technically you 'could do', however, its something that would probably damage your Discordian street cred.
Shades of Steve Jackson ITT :lulz:
Yeah, I was actually thinking about Steve Jackson, and that one lady who altered the PD and copyrighted her version.
I feel like there are shades of gray here, but overall I think that it would be Not Good if someone said "hey Kopyleft authors, I'm putting together a magazine!" and then, after the fact, copyrighted the magazine so that only they could reprint, distribute, and profit from it. It would leave a lot of authors rethinking releasing anything under Kopyleft.
If they let people know up front and got permission from each author first, that would be different... but it also would render Kopyleft
completely meaningless. The idea of Kopyleft, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, was for materials to be shared freely for everyone to use and re-use, ad infinitum. If I have any Kopyleft work out there (which I don't think I do, but maybe I was drunk), I ONLY want it used in Kopyleft publications.
It's pretty standard in small-distribution magazines, and I mean with distributions up to the tens of thousands, for submissions to not be paid for. People still submit. I've got quite a bit of published work out there that I wasn't paid for, but it was a single-use license and copyright reverted to me.
my two cents:
* "Kopyleft" has no legal status, and I've seen it been interpreted as anything from Public Domain up to "Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Non-Commercial". therefore I would like to STRONGLY SUGGEST WE DO NOT USE THE TERM KOPYLEFT ANYMORE IN SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, but instead be explicit about one's license, just pick one of the four prefab ones from Creative Commons, and add your own exceptions if you like.
* I think, that if someone wants to sell Intermittens for profit, they should let the authors know beforehand, so they can decide whether to submit articles or not. I could explain why this is legally the case unless somebody explicitly stated otherwise, but it's also simply the proper thing to do.
* However, by submitting an article to an Intermittens issue, the author is implicitly giving permission to distribute and publish that article (while still retaining copyright unless otherwise agreed upon), which cannot be retracted. This makes sense because copies of the issue might (legally) be anywhere on the Internet by now, and there's no way to let the owners of that particular copy know that the license has suddenly changed.
* In case someone wants to sell Intermittens, I think that is allowed, provided they charge no more than the costs of printing. If they happen to make a bit of profit, somewhere in the order of a sixpack of beers or so, I don't think that should be such a big deal. Especially not if they drink the beer in the process of selling in order to cope with the psychological damage resulting from dealing with the Machine's Capitalist Gears :-P However, if it turns out to be, say, as much as to buy 10 friends a night of booze, I think that is not okay and they should give the money to PD as a community (maybe minus a sixpack).
Further clarification:
From Cram and my earlier discussions, the sole point was to figure out how to get PHYSICAL Intermittens out to our friends and fellow Discordians. THIS WAS OUR ONLY MOTIVATION.
I absolutely empathize with Cain, as my girl and I are in basically the same situation (as many of us are).
The unfortunate reality of that is Physical Intermittens requires funding to get done. Thus we have this situation........
I will think about this more before replying any further.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 21, 2009, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: Payne on April 21, 2009, 09:34:22 PM
I'm with Cain here.
That is all.
Then make sure your work is Copyright.
Cain isn't talking about Copyright, from what I read here. He may be, but what I see is someone asking where the fuck his cut is in his work being sold for profit without prior agreement.
And I agree.
I have made a post on Kopyleft Authors to reflect my view on this.
I'm happy for my work to be used but never for profit unless prior agreement is reached as to what my cut will be, and to what use my cut shall be used for.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 21, 2009, 09:39:38 PMHowever, if it turns out to be, say, as much as to buy 10 friends a night of booze, I think that is not okay and they should give the money to PD as a community (maybe minus a sixpack).
addition: Since there are currently people from outside PD working on and submitting to IM issues, giving to the PD community would not be entirely fair.
So the above statement only applies to issues that have been published so far (which have been put together by PDers for the largest part).
For new issues, I propose that this discussion should be an example why
it is important to be explicit about the licenses under which they accept submissions, especially if they intend to sell the issue.Cause I see no reason why someone wouldnt call for submissions on an IM issue with the explicit statement that articles will be accepted under the express license that the issue will be sold for profit. Or some such.
The upside of an IM publication for profit would be incentive for the editor to continue putting effort into putting issues together,
and spreading them in Meatspace, which may, if the Black Swan looks upon us favourably, result in a discordian magazine with a very wide audience.
As long as the authors submitting articles know where they stand before submitting.
It seems to me, that if anyone wants to make money publishing something... they should probably do that as a separate project rather than trying to dual use Intermittens. Lots of blood, sweat and cash have gone into many of the projects here, from Intermittens to Radio Free Discordia to PD.com without people trying to make a buck on it. I think there is lots of room to make money on Discordian ideas/concepts/products etc. However, personally, I would probably take on for profit work on my own, or with a group of people specifically put together to do something for profit (example, rather than an issue of Intermittens, maybe some Discordian 'zine that a small group puts together on their own etc, rather than for profit ads during my show in RFD, maybe I'd publish my own podcast with ads).
Quote from: Payne on April 21, 2009, 09:50:12 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 21, 2009, 09:35:34 PM
Quote from: Payne on April 21, 2009, 09:34:22 PM
I'm with Cain here.
That is all.
Then make sure your work is Copyright.
Cain isn't talking about Copyright, from what I read here. He may be, but what I see is someone asking where the fuck his cut is in his work being sold for profit without prior agreement.
And I agree.
I have made a post on Kopyleft Authors to reflect my view on this.
I'm happy for my work to be used but never for profit unless prior agreement is reached as to what my cut will be, and to what use my cut shall be used for.
I understand what Cain is saying, but that's why his work should be copyright and licensed rather than Kopyleft. Kopyleft basically says "Do whatever the fuck you want with this"... if you don't want people to do whatever the fuck they want with your content, you should copyright it and use an appropriate license like Creative Commons etc.
I have, up to this point used Kopyleft because I don't care if Cram sells what I write. I'm surprised enough that someone wants to read my stuff for free, let alone pay for it!! :lulz: If you think your work is valuable and you want to control it DO NEVAR USE KOPYLEFT.
Also I agree with 000's comment.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 21, 2009, 09:57:58 PMKopyleft basically says "Do whatever the fuck you want with this"...
no it doesnt, Kopyleft doesn't mean anything all, and that's why I urge everybody to stop using the word in serious discussion about intellectual property, because it just confuses matters.
Including this discussion.
Including the post you just made. Because you're once more confusing matters by implying that Kopyleft (which has no legal meaning) excludes Copyright (which has legal meaning and is implicitly assumed for any work that has no explicit license).
Getting legal nitty gritty about it, stating a work "is Kopyleft" is legally simply NOT considered a statement about intellectual property licensing, and therefore the work defaults to the regular implied copyright license.
And since I
have seen "Kopyleft" be used with the intention to mean anything ranging from pure Public Domain up to the most restrictive Creative Commons license (which is not very restrictive, but doesnt allow commercial use for instance), it's very clear that not everybody agrees that it implies Public Domain, as you seem to suggest.
QuoteIf you think your work is valuable and you want to control it DO NEVAR USE KOPYLEFT.
this is exactly the sort of confusing statement I was trying to prevent.
because this statement is true in some sense, false in some sense and meaningless in some sense. which is wonderfully discordian, but also very out of place in a serious discussion about intellectual property.
QuoteAlso I agree with 000's comment.
that's great, but either you didnt really understand what I was trying to say, or you don't really agree :-)
I like what 000 has to say on this subject.
How about this: We agree to use the terms "Public Domain" and "Creative Commons" to replace the various permutations of "Kopyleft"?
Announcement:
I officially redact my intent to sell existing issues of Intermittens for profit.
Quote from: Nigel on April 21, 2009, 10:54:29 PM
I like what 000 has to say on this subject.
How about this: We agree to use the terms "Public Domain" and "Creative Commons" to replace the various permutations of "Kopyleft"?
I agree wholeheartedly! but,
IMPORTANT
with the addition that they state WHICH Creative Commons license they want to use!
there's six of them, and they are explained here in six very simple non-legalese paragraphs:
http://creativecommons.org/about/licensesdo yourself a favour and check them out, it won't take a minute. pretty much ANY variation on "you're free to use my work provided ..." that I've seen people talk about on this board is covered under one of these six licenses.
IMO, Creative Commons is a Very Good Thing. and easy to use.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 21, 2009, 10:50:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 21, 2009, 09:57:58 PMKopyleft basically says "Do whatever the fuck you want with this"...
no it doesnt, Kopyleft doesn't mean anything all, and that's why I urge everybody to stop using the word in serious discussion about intellectual property, because it just confuses matters.
Including this discussion.
Including the post you just made. Because you're once more confusing matters by implying that Kopyleft (which has no legal meaning) excludes Copyright (which has legal meaning and is implicitly assumed for any work that has no explicit license).
Getting legal nitty gritty about it, stating a work "is Kopyleft" is legally simply NOT considered a statement about intellectual property licensing, and therefore the work defaults to the regular implied copyright license.
And since I have seen "Kopyleft" be used with the intention to mean anything ranging from pure Public Domain up to the most restrictive Creative Commons license (which is not very restrictive, but doesnt allow commercial use for instance), it's very clear that not everybody agrees that it implies Public Domain, as you seem to suggest.
QuoteIf you think your work is valuable and you want to control it DO NEVAR USE KOPYLEFT.
this is exactly the sort of confusing statement I was trying to prevent.
because this statement is true in some sense, false in some sense and meaningless in some sense. which is wonderfully discordian, but also very out of place in a serious discussion about intellectual property.
QuoteAlso I agree with 000's comment.
that's great, but either you didnt really understand what I was trying to say, or you don't really agree :-)
When I say that my work is Kopyleft. I mean it in that sense, consider it "Copyright MU" or "Copyright Turkey Cursing". Copyright FNORD. Copyright "HOLY FUCK ITS A GODDESS-DAMNED INTERNET POST WHO THE FUCK CARES IF YOU REPRODUCE MY WORK"
I have no desire to change my position simply because some other people suddenly decided their Discordian Poop was valuable.
My work is like all other Discordian works marked (k). If a person can't figure out what that means, maybe they shouldn't be using my work.
Some Discordian Poop is more valuable than others.
Just sayin.
Quote from: NeT@uNGr0t on April 21, 2009, 11:46:09 PM
Some Discordian Poop is more valuable than others.
Just sayin.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Then the people with valuable poop should make sure they get paid their weight.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
This thread was very enlightening.
I never knew Steve Jackson looked like a huge gigantic dork. I suspected it of course.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 11:12:41 AM
Or would it be against all that's good and holy to sell kopyleft work?
Not as long as I get my cut.
Fuckers.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
over here in the states I had planned to use this guy Danny Chaoflux's small distribution press in Oregon (once he gets it set up). http://r6xx.com/
Failing that, all our scribus templates are formatted for magcloud.com (http://magcloud.com) - a print-on-demand magazine printer. They're expensive though - $0.20 per page. Can you get a per-page rate, inc. shipping?
The idea being that the editor can sell issues if he or she would like to. For my IM#1, I was gonna split my profits with Telarus (who put many hours into layout).
lol profits
I don't want any more of my stuff going into Intermittens. Ever.
That is all.
Quote from: Cain on April 21, 2009, 04:00:48 PM
What?
You decided you were going to use my work to make money without me getting a cut? This is fucking bullshit. I worked on the presumption that Intermittens is free and that no-one profits from it, and that if any profits were made, they would go into improved distribution or site maintenence only.
Its bad enough I don't even have a job, but now to have my work used to make money for others without my say so? Absolute fucking crap. If this is the way Intermittens is going, then my work is no longer going to be featured. At all.
What he said.
No, we didn't DECIDE that. We decided to attempt to get physical copies of Intermittens made. THAT IS ALL. Everything past that was speculation/throwing ideas around.
Personally, if the decision was made to sell physical copies above cost I would have liked it to go into a 'black box' bank account until we had enough $$ to finance the Aporia, Inc game or similar mindfucks (or buying everyone on the Forum a fucking T-shirt or something).
My conversations with Cram re: MagCloud never got past "Well, we could set the price above cost but then what to do with the proceeds?" and some idle chatter about the editors, and chatter back about how to include the other contributors. I really never even got to express the bolded section above because Cram and I haven't really talked about this for months.
But at this point, I'm with Cram. If I do end up formatting the issues for MagCloud, they will be sold 'at cost'.
This whole thread makes me a sad panda.
Quote from: Telarus on April 22, 2009, 02:06:16 AM
No, we didn't DECIDE that. We decided to attempt to get physical copies of Intermittens made. THAT IS ALL. Everything past that was speculation/throwing ideas around.
Personally, if the decision was made to sell physical copies above cost I would have liked it to go into a 'black box' bank account until we had enough $$ to finance the Aporia, Inc game or similar mindfucks (or buying everyone on the Forum a fucking T-shirt or something).
My conversations with Cram re: MagCloud never got past "Well, we could set the price above cost but then what to do with the proceeds?" and some idle chatter about the editors, and chatter back about how to include the other contributors. I really never even got to express the bolded section above because Cram and I haven't really talked about this for months.
But at this point, I'm with Cram. If I do end up formatting the issues for MagCloud, they will be sold 'at cost'.
This whole thread makes me a sad panda.
...
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
over here in the states I had planned to use this guy Danny Chaoflux's small distribution press in Oregon (once he gets it set up). http://r6xx.com/
Failing that, all our scribus templates are formatted for magcloud.com (http://magcloud.com) - a print-on-demand magazine printer. They're expensive though - $0.20 per page. Can you get a per-page rate, inc. shipping?
The idea being that the editor can sell issues if he or she would like to. For my IM#1, I was gonna split my profits with Telarus (who put many hours into layout).
lol profits
This fread is a fucking toolbox. I was all "fair enough" until I had a think about it last night and you know what? GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
:argh!:
All I ask is if any of this gets made into a movie that I am played by either Michael Keaton or Sandra Bullock.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This fread is a fucking toolbox. I was all "fair enough" until I had a think about it last night and you know what? GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
:argh!:
Quoted For Fucking Troof.
However, I think we all need to calm down ITT. I mean, most of this stuff is all theoretitical anyway, and I highly doubt that anyone will make much money off Intermittens anyway. No offence or anything, btw.
What the fuck?
I go away for a week, and this happens?
I would have thought you'd have thought this through, people.
To be clear, by "people", I mean Cram and those who agree with his statement, "I was gonna split my profits with Telarus."
Or, as it was interpreted by myself, "I'm gonna take the creative efforts that people donated and try to make a buck off it."
To not even consider that the contributers might like to have some sort of compensation is bizarre.
Back in the day when I was a music editor, we didn't have much money to offer writers. But what we did have were free CDs, access to shows and interviews, the occasional keg from Harpoon Breweries, and a chance for a writer to see their names in print. We gave the writers what we could, often at the expense of our dinner some weeks. What we didn't do was tell them to buy their own albums, give them to us for free, at which point we'd turn around and pocket any ad revenue for ourselves.
It doesn't matter how much (or little) post-production profit can be made. As is often the case, it's the principle of the matter that counts here. Even if a writer got just a dime after it was all over, they deserved that dime.
Not to mention the precedent that has just been sent. For example, I'm very excited about what had been happening with the Chao te Ching project; so much so that I think I've already banged out twenty or so chapters. But now I have to think, "what if Cram decides to publish this thing, and pocket the profits with the layout guy?" And that makes me reluctant to continue my work.
When I read this thread, my first reaction was to refuse to partcipate in the Intermittens project, and to ask for my writings to be removed. But I have decided to be an example, instead.
LET IT BE KNOWN, that I intend to continue Intermittens Shin, the :cn: issue.
HOWEVER, once it is completed and posted on intermittens.org, I intend to pay each writer $0.01 a word. So, write a couple of paragraphs, and I'll send you a dollar if it gets into the issue. Write a fantastic conspiracy theory, you'll be able to afford a six-pack. Write a dissertation, and dinner's on me.*
That doesn't mean I'll pay anyone just for sending me some content. As the editor, I have a thumbs up/thumbs down decision whether it goes in or not. If I feel that it's too long, i will ask the author to trim it, rather than do it myself. If the piece gets into the issue, I'll paypal what I owe you.
FURTHERMORE, If (if, indeed) the issue actually goes to print, and if it generates profit after production costs are met, all profits will be divided in a percentage equal to the percentage of the issue the writer contributed to. So, if you wrote one page of a ten-page issue, you get 10% of any profits.
You might notice I don't make money off of this. That's because I feel the contributers are more important than the publishers. Until an Intermittens business model can be proven as profitable, I don't get paid. In fact, I lose money.
Welcome to the world of publishing.
*Due to the variable nature of art, all graphics will be negotiated beforehand.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 21, 2009, 08:17:37 PM
"Nobody wants to feel screwed. Nobody is trying to screw anybody else. Many of us are poor. Some of us are entrepeneurs. I don't have all the answers, but there's gotta be a way for us to reach a good model. We're making this up as we go along."
For the record, it's never been my intention to sell anybody's work if it would piss them off. Telarus and I started to format IM for magcloud.com, but have been too distracted to really get it set up. Just so it doesn't seem like I'm keeping secrets, when we approached that hurdle, I was going to contact all the writers and make sure stuff was cool. I don't have a problem AT ALL with sending people some cash if I'm going to be making cash.
My posts earlier in this thread sounded to some like I was going to screw everybody for profit and laugh my way to the bank. If that was the effect, I misspoke and I apologize. I thought I made it clear, above, that I believe in fair compensation for creative efforts, but I'm requoting it for posterity.
This has been a weird period for me. I'm poor too, and a little bit of this crazy entrepeneur Phinneas Poxwattle got into me. I thought I could make a few bucks (read: enough money to buy a sick pack) by selling Intermittens, but I now realize that it's folly to try to profit off of it. At the outset of this thread, my impression was "let's discuss things, I bet if I tossed the writers a few bucks, they'd be fine with their work being sold. After all,
I'd be flattered if someone actually sold my work." Not everybody feels that way, and that's acceptable. It was never my intent to violate people's IP or to sell work without permission. To date I have made $0 and will continue to make $0. If you've been screwed, you've gotten screwed out of $0.
a bit of background--For me, one of the sources of this confusion is the If It's Not Kopyleft (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19769.msg665726#msg665726) thread. It wasn't until we discussed this (about three months after the first issue came out) that I was really well acqainted with the details of creative commons licenses. Prior, I assumed that "Kopyleft" meant something like "commercial share alike", and that by marking your stuff Kopyleft ("all rights reversed"!), you were actually declaring it was A-OK to sell it. Live and learn. Now we know that Kopyleft is kind of meaningless, because it means different things to different people, and I restate my opinion that we should bulldoze the Kopyleft Authors (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=11808.0) thread and restart a Creative Commons thread. it will alleviate MUCH of this confusion in the future hail eris.
Creative Disorder = Intermittens
Destructive Order = Worrying about which license your spaggoty Internet ramblings are under...
Result = Bad Trip
Cram, I think the fatal flaw was that you didn't say, "I bet if I toss the writers a few bucks, they'd be ok" in the opening posts.
You specifically said, "If I make a profit, I'll be splitting it between myself and Telarus." You explicitly excluded the writers.
If you didn't mean it that way, I have no problem with that.
Rat, I don't think the main issue is about licensing. I think it's about fairness, and respect.
Incidentally to everyone else, my offer on Intermittens Shin is still good.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 02:02:58 PM
Creative Disorder = Intermittens
Destructive Order = Worrying about which license your spaggoty Internet ramblings are under...
Result = Bad Trip
for fuck's sake, Rat, as been repeatedly pointed out, it's the *lack* of clearness about licensing that started this shit.
A Creative Commons license is not something to "worry about", but is in fact one of the easiest ways to get a simple and clear for everybody to understand grip on your intellectual property rights. It's "creative order" to take ones responsibility as an author and be explicit and clear about these things, and it's "destructive disorder" to let it be open for confusion.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 22, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 02:02:58 PM
Creative Disorder = Intermittens
Destructive Order = Worrying about which license your spaggoty Internet ramblings are under...
Result = Bad Trip
for fuck's sake, Rat, as been repeatedly pointed out, it's the *lack* of clearness about licensing that started this shit.
A Creative Commons license is not something to "worry about", but is in fact one of the easiest ways to get a simple and clear for everybody to understand grip on your intellectual property rights. It's "creative order" to take ones responsibility as an author and be explicit and clear about these things, and it's "destructive disorder" to let it be open for confusion.
for fuck's sake TripleZero, as been repeatedly pointed out WORRYING ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF INTERNET POSTS AND DISCORDIAN POOP IS WHAT STARTED THIS SHIT.
I think Intermittens is a great bit of Discordian propaganda, a fantastic way to record Discordian thought is a manner that might survive and someday be useful for future generations of Discordians to see what spaggoty shit we were spewing back in the day. I think Cram is nuts to believe that people would pay more than $0.25 for an issue of Intermittens. I think some other people may be nuts for thinking that they should protect their Internet posts like the next great NYT Bestseller. As nuts, if not more nuts, than RIAA... at least their IP already makes money and they have contracts etc in place.
Intermittens 1 is almost, if not entirely made of up posts from this forum. Random posts collected together by Manta Obscura and formatted by Cramulus and Telarus. It's not like we authors spent days working toward a deadline or bleeding out those words to make rent for the month. They were free expressions of ideas, speeches made on stumps and soap boxes, for fun and ego and bragging rights. No one expected to make money on those posts. Months ago I pointed out that Kopyleft wasn't a legal thing... and peope continued to release their work under it, from here that appears like they weren't really worried about their IP...
Until someone invoked Mammon.
Creative Commons is great. If people think their random poopings on this forum need to be protected, they should use a Creative Commons style license and MARK EVERY POST.
Or, they can get over it and have a nice time posting on an Internet forum and not worrying about Cramulus and his imaginary $10.00 profit.
You can see it however you like. That is how I see it.
Ratatosk seems to me to be the only person ITT standing anywhere close to a motorcycle.
Fking licensing laws and publishing rights on web forum posts - listen to yourselves! :lulz:
If anyone makes a single dollar off of any issue of Intermittens I will eat a medium sized hat.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 03:39:19 PM
for fuck's sake TripleZero, as been repeatedly pointed out WORRYING ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF INTERNET POSTS AND DISCORDIAN POOP IS WHAT STARTED THIS SHIT.
Wrong.
What "started this shit" is that someone mis-spoke, and said they were going to sell someone else's work and keep the profit for themselves.
It wasn't about "creative commons" or "kopyleft", it was about recognition, respect, and fairness.
Not that I have ever contributed anything that I expected money for.... Just a "For the Record" statement before I get the who the fuck do I think I am comment.
There is a BIG difference between writing something for an internet magazine and a print magazine. There are, I am sure, legal issues that should be considered. You know, things with really ugly names like slander, libel, LAWSUIT!! On the net, there is a degree of deniability that isn't there once something is in print.
As far as making a profit on these issues. I have to agree that if there is a "profit" beyond publishing costs, then it should be shared among the contributors or put toward future issues, donated to the site, something. I don't agree that the editor of the issue "owns" that issue and can make the decisions about it alone. This was a group project and it should be a group decision.
Maybe we should get a few people who don't contribute to oversee the distribution and such?
We could have contributors sign releases for their work? That might be an option.
I just think Intermittens is one of the best things that we've done here at PD and I would hate to see it die.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This fread is a fucking toolbox. I was all "fair enough" until I had a think about it last night and you know what? GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
:argh!:
Are you serious? Are you seriously, for one thing, calling any and all creative works shared in whole or in part on this forum "shit we type on the internets"? Because a lot of it is, but a lot of the things people post are essays, stories, poems, art etc. that they did not write here, did not write for here, and are intended for later use in their own projects. If you want to reduce those posts to "shit we type on the internets"... well, I think that's unbelievably insulting to everyone who has posted an art or writing project out of a desire to share with/gain feedback from a community they care about and respect.
Are you really going to "I will use whatever the hell you goddamn well please (permission or not)"? Not only is that disrespectful in the extreme, it's illegal as hell. By law, everything I write, including this post, is copyrighted to me, and unless I release my rights by explicitly saying so, you can't legally reprint it. But the legal aspect isn't the one that bothers me... it's the complete and utter disrespect of that statement. Are you going to print Roger's rants without permission? Fred's art? Cain and Kai's essays? LMNO's fiction? If that happens, the inevitable end result of such a slap in the face is the end of this project and upheaval of this community.
You can consider everything you post here internet ramblings, discordian poop or whatever you want, but don't denigrate the efforts and contributions of people who take their writing more seriously, and happen to share some of it here.
Quote from: LMNO on April 22, 2009, 03:58:25 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 03:39:19 PM
for fuck's sake TripleZero, as been repeatedly pointed out WORRYING ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF INTERNET POSTS AND DISCORDIAN POOP IS WHAT STARTED THIS SHIT.
Wrong.
What "started this shit" is that someone mis-spoke, and said they were going to sell someone else's work and keep the profit for themselves.
It wasn't about "creative commons" or "kopyleft", it was about recognition, respect, and fairness.
Recognition, Fairness and Respect over posts on an internet forum that span months if not years...
Cramulus had every article tagged with
recognition, its called a byline. People stated that their content was Kopyleft, even though we have had discussions on what that legally means, or doesn't mean in the past. Other Kopyleft material, like the PD, has been collected, formatted and then sold for profit... I think it was perfectly
fair for Cramulus to expect that he could profit from his work in formatting (bad idea, but fair assumption) etc. As for Respect, Cram picked out those pieces because he felt they were excellent examples of what Discordia is like in 2009... out of the thousands and thousands of posts on this forum, he picked out a handful... How much more
RESPECT do you need?
It seems insulting to me, that you appear to presume that Recognition, Respect and Fairness is measured in $.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 04:18:24 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This fread is a fucking toolbox. I was all "fair enough" until I had a think about it last night and you know what? GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
:argh!:
Are you serious? Are you seriously, for one thing, calling any and all creative works shared in whole or in part on this forum "shit we type on the internets"? Because a lot of it is, but a lot of the things people post are essays, stories, poems, art etc. that they did not write here, did not write for here, and are intended for later use in their own projects. If you want to reduce those posts to "shit we type on the internets"... well, I think that's unbelievably insulting to everyone who has posted an art or writing project out of a desire to share with/gain feedback from a community they care about and respect.
Are you really going to "I will use whatever the hell you goddamn well please (permission or not)"? Not only is that disrespectful in the extreme, it's illegal as hell. By law, everything I write, including this post, is copyrighted to me, and unless I release my rights by explicitly saying so, you can't legally reprint it. But the legal aspect isn't the one that bothers me... it's the complete and utter disrespect of that statement. Are you going to print Roger's rants without permission? Fred's art? Cain and Kai's essays? LMNO's fiction? If that happens, the inevitable end result of such a slap in the face is the end of this project and upheaval of this community.
You can consider everything you post here internet ramblings, discordian poop or whatever you want, but don't denigrate the efforts and contributions of people who take their writing more seriously, and happen to share some of it here.
Then you should mark all of your work Copyright, If every Nigel post says "Copyright by Nigel" then no one will accidentally think you meant it when you said Kopyleft and try to use your content without permission*.
If you are ever going to publish something like poems, stories etc... you should not post them on Internet Forums first. This opens up all sorts of issues and many publishers will not accept work that has been published on the net or posted on the net. Indeed, there is still a lot of questions surrounding the legal status of Internet Posts. For example, perhaps I have a copy of something you wrote here. Five years from now, PD.com is gone, the server blew up, there was no backup and all the data is gone forever. If I published your work as my own... you would have NO legal protection because you would be unable to prove your wrote it first. I wouldn't do that, cause I'm not an asshole... well, not in that way at least.
IF you really want to protect your Intellectual Property, make a printed copy, mail it to yourself, don't ever open it and store it somewhere fireproof. Then, if you ever go to court, the court will have a sealed, dated (from the postmark) copy to prove you wrote it at that time. Internet forums do not provide any real IP protection.
* Except P3Nt, who apparently is gonna pirate the whole forum, turn it into the next Nobel Prize for Literature, not give any credit to anyone, then take the millions of dollars and sitcom guest appearances for himself.... he's a bastard.
So, Rat, I take it that you view anything posted anywhere on the internet as an "internet post", and therefore not worth worrying about intellectual property rights over?
How about "John Dies at the End"? That's an internet post.
It seems as if you're failing to recognize that there is a lot of work that gets posted in Bring & Brag or Or Kill Me that did not begin life as an "internet post". I've dug up old stories, essays and poems and posted them here before the I'll-publish-anything-I-see free-for-all, assuming that my rights as the author would be at least respected.
At the time there was no Intermittens, and certainly no talk of publishing for profit. Why would I, or anyone, assume there ever would be?
It's been well established for some time now that forum posts are the intellectual property of the author, and having proof of authorship in the form of a post with a time/date stamp is evidence enough to uphold copyright if necessary. Saying "if you want to retain your rights, don't post it on the internet" is naive at best, malicious at worst, and far from accurate.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on April 22, 2009, 03:57:27 PM
If anyone makes a single dollar off of any issue of Intermittens I will eat a medium sized hat.
Sounds like incentive enough for me.
Also, Rat, I don't NEED to mark my work "copyright by Nigel" because the DEFAULT is copyright. If I want to release rights to my work, I have to specifically state as much, with each individual piece.
Some publishers do consider work posted on the internet "previously published", but that's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Also irrelevant to this discussion is how best to protect your copyright. What IS relevant is people within this community showing appropriate respect for the work of others, so that work continues to be shared.
If I KNOW this forum is going to become a battleground where I have to defend my right to have any input in how or where or which of my work is used, I'll simply delete everything and stop contributing, and I am pretty sure I won't be the only one.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 04:32:14 PM
So, Rat, I take it that you view anything posted anywhere on the internet as an "internet post", and therefore not worth worrying about intellectual property rights over?
No - it's the owner that does that. By posting it on the internet.
If you think you have a serious piece of literature that you're planning on making money off you should do what JK Rowling does with her Harry fucking Potter novels - that is not post it on the internets.
Moaning about someone gathering up shit you essentially threw away the rights to and making a buck out of it is tantamount to complaining about someone recycling your garabage - that was my point. Do I think some of the posts here could make money for the authors if published as a book or newspaper/magazine article? Hell yeah. Fact is they aren't - the authors have already thrown away that chance b y posting them here. Now either that was intentional or they are idiots. Since the ones complaining the loudest about Crams schemes seem to be claiming it wasn't the former I'm left with no alternative but to assume the latter.
I don't expect to make any money off of anything I write, and that's not what this is about. What this is about is the attitude some people seem to have that if they can see something, they can take it. YOU may think that posting something online is tantamount to "throwing away the rights" to it, but the legal system doesn't, at all.
If you really feel that way, why not scavenge Blogspot for some really good writing, and then publish it? I'm sure you'd get away with that...
I'm out of this fread - it's getting on my tits. I've made my position clear regarding my "works" and I'm quite happy to respect anyone's wishes about theirs. (FTR: note I said "wishes" and not "opinions")
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 04:47:49 PM
I'm out of this fread - it's getting on my tits. I've made my position clear regarding my "works" and I'm quite happy to respect anyone's wishes about theirs. (FTR: note I said "wishes" and not "opinions")
So "I'll use what I damn well please, permission or not" is now "respect"?
If you can't concede to being wrong about the legality of stealing other people's work online, at least have the courtesy not to insult them to their faces.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 04:21:32 PM
It seems insulting to me, that you appear to presume that Recognition, Respect and Fairness is measured in $.
Odd that you thought I was only referring to money.
At the beginning, the situation was framed a certain way... There were certain game rules we understood and accepted. It was a free publication, we were grabbing what we thought was good, everything's on the level.
What happened is that someone posted as if they had decided to change the game rules,
without consulting the rest of the players, and profiting off of it.
The issue isn't whether he had the "right" to do it due to Copyright, it's whether the prinicple involved was the "right" thing.
Sure, he could argue that he should/does have the right to sell what we freely gave him, and that he might even have legal standing, based on the "Kopyright authors" thread... But that doesn't make doing it
JUST.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 04:32:14 PM
So, Rat, I take it that you view anything posted anywhere on the internet as an "internet post", and therefore not worth worrying about intellectual property rights over?
How about "John Dies at the End"? That's an internet post.
It seems as if you're failing to recognize that there is a lot of work that gets posted in Bring & Brag or Or Kill Me that did not begin life as an "internet post". I've dug up old stories, essays and poems and posted them here before the I'll-publish-anything-I-see free-for-all, assuming that my rights as the author would be at least respected.
At the time there was no Intermittens, and certainly no talk of publishing for profit. Why would I, or anyone, assume there ever would be?
It's been well established for some time now that forum posts are the intellectual property of the author, and having proof of authorship in the form of a post with a time/date stamp is evidence enough to uphold copyright if necessary. Saying "if you want to retain your rights, don't post it on the internet" is naive at best, malicious at worst, and far from accurate.
Nigel, I just gave you an example of why it is not a good idea. A) Many publishers won't accept it. B) The Internets is not a work in stone and you MAY NOT HAVE a copy of "proof of authorship in the form of a post with a time/date stamp is evidence enough to uphold copyright if necessary". The server might die tomorrow and all that 'proof' would be gone in a *poof*.
Quote
So, Rat, I take it that you view anything posted anywhere on the internet as an "internet post", and therefore not worth worrying about intellectual property rights over?
For me personally? What I post on the Internet is stuff that I don't have a concern about IP over. I assume that if I put it on the Internet, other people might copy it.
For other people? I would say that IF they think their post has valuable IP, they should carefully consider if giving it away for free on the net makes sense... they should properly mark it as copyright (or under whatever license they choose)... finally, they should make sure to actually portect their IP by having actual evidence that their work is properly copyrighted.
I don't care if people think their posts are gold. That's fine... but they need to think about A) sticking gold on the net in a forum post, B) making sure their gold is clearly labeled as their gold.
Personally, I don't find munch in Intermittens to be all that applicable outside of the Discordian community, I think its value on the street is probably not what it would cost to print.
Let, say that Intermittens 1 is 35 pages. Let's say printing in full color on nice paper is $0.20 per page. That's $7.00 just to break even. Do you think people are gonna pay more for Intermittens than Newsweek? What is the actual VALUE of the IP involved here?
QuoteSaying "if you want to retain your rights, don't post it on the internet" is naive at best, malicious at worst, and far from accurate.
Nigel, if I didn't have to deal with this shit in real life, on a regular basis, I might agree. However, I do have to deal with IP and the Internet regularly. I have to hang out with lawyers and listen to all sorts of legal opinions, ramblings and bullshit. I get to hang out with some of the 'brightest minds of 21st century digital law'... and you know what they say?
Let me paraphrase without the legalspeak:
... if you want to retain your rights, don't post it on the internet...
OR (as I stated in the last post)
Copyright it in the proper manner first.
I think you are completely misunderstanding my position on this, so let me be clear:
I DON"T GIVE A FUCK HOW YOU CHOOSE TO PROTECT YOUR POSTS. I WILL RESPECT WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE.
You absolutely have a copyright on ANYTHING you post. However, if ... in another thread, you say something like "My Work is Kopyleft" you shouldn't be surprised if people thought they were allowed to do as they will with it. Further, IF you think some story/poem etc IS actually valuable MAKE SURE YOU HAVE IT REALLY REALLY PROTECTED FOR REAL.
I am never gonna rape this forum for content and use it without permission. I wouldn't respect anyone who did, because I think that sort of behavior is shitty.
However, personally... my private opinion... I think I've made clear.
QuoteWhat happened is that someone posted as if they had decided to change the game rules, without consulting the rest of the players, and profiting off of it.
That seems odd, since:
Quote
Ok, so Rumkle pointed out that there is a store here in Melbourne that will print magazines for free if they like them, and then sell them and split the profits with the people behind the magazine...
So I was wondering what intermittens crew think.
that doesn't look like changing the game rules to me.
Cram's second post:
QuoteI think it should be up to the editor
looks like discussion, not changed game rules.
In fact, the whole first page looks like 'DISCUSSION', not changed game rules.
Get some perspective.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:01:12 PM
Get some perspective.
QuoteI was gonna split my profits with Telarus.
I think it should be up to the editor what they do with their issues and any revenue potentially generated from them.
I'd like to be the first one to profit off my labor.
Yeah. So, anyway...
This thread is all kinds of retarded. How supremely ironic for Discordians to suddenly get so butthurt about something as stupid as copyright issues.
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on April 22, 2009, 03:57:27 PM
If anyone makes a single dollar off of any issue of Intermittens I will eat a medium sized hat.
Yeah, this. The fact that you guys are contemplating going to small vanity presses should be a big clue here.
After a quick phone chat with one of our IP lawyers, I also got some advice on the future state based on discussions in the Kopyleft thread.
If you want your content to be covered under a CC license, you should define that with the content and not in a separate thread. Any post not marked defaults to copyright. Proof of copyright can be presented digitally, if you can prove non-repudiation... that is you can prove that you didn't manipulate the date stamp, or that no one else manipulated the date stamp etc.
As an aside, he seemed to think that this current situation would be very interesting in court. By law, all of our work here is copyright, however, given that kopyleft content has been published and has an existing 'common' meaning, anyone that published the material for profit, could be found to have had a reasonable expectation of the will of the author.
He said it would end up depending on the judge and their interpretation, but that the lawyers on both sides would have some very interesting arguments.
Also he said this was not legal advice and shouldn't be considered as legal advice.
Rat, whether posting online is a "good idea" is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION, which is about respect and legality. How I protect my copyright is beside the point. The fact that someone might be able to get away with stealing other people's work is simply not relevant. It's a straw man.
This whole discussion has taken place countless times on countless other forums, including the ISGB forum which is a forum for a trade organization which has a lawyer who is highly versed in copyright law. Don't bother with your "I schmooze with lawyers" appeal-to-authority argument... again, it's irrelevant.
What is relevant here is whether this community is going to choose to respect the authors who contribute not only to the forum discussions, but also to collaborative projects like Intermittens. This is an issue of community standards. I feel that a consensus on this is important, because otherwise I believe that a lot of people will pull their work and stop contributing. It certainly isn't an issue of money, but of intent.
Regardless of how I've protected my copyright, it wouldn't be worth it for me to sue an Intermittens editor for misappropriating my work, but if that was to become the "community standard" here, it would leave a sour taste in my mouth and I would be unlikely to participate in any future projects, or to post my work here, and I know that I am not the only person who feels this way.
For the record, to the best of my knowledge I have never declared any of my work "kopyleft", and at least one of my pieces that is in an Intermittens issue has also been published elsewhere. For free, of course, but with my permission and proper attribution.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:20:37 PM
After a quick phone chat with one of our IP lawyers, I also got some advice on the future state based on discussions in the Kopyleft thread.
If you want your content to be covered under a CC license, you should define that with the content and not in a separate thread. Any post not marked defaults to copyright. Proof of copyright can be presented digitally, if you can prove non-repudiation... that is you can prove that you didn't manipulate the date stamp, or that no one else manipulated the date stamp etc.
As an aside, he seemed to think that this current situation would be very interesting in court. By law, all of our work here is copyright, however, given that kopyleft content has been published and has an existing 'common' meaning, anyone that published the material for profit, could be found to have had a reasonable expectation of the will of the author.
He said it would end up depending on the judge and their interpretation, but that the lawyers on both sides would have some very interesting arguments.
Also he said this was not legal advice and shouldn't be considered as legal advice.
Isn't that what both 000 and I have been saying?
And whether OTHER people here have released work as "kopyleft" has no bearing on those of us who haven't.
Quote from: LMNO on April 22, 2009, 05:13:52 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:01:12 PM
Get some perspective.
QuoteI was gonna split my profits with Telarus.
I think it should be up to the editor what they do with their issues and any revenue potentially generated from them.
I'd like to be the first one to profit off my labor.
Yeah. So, anyway...
It is, frankly, the "It should be up to the editor what they do with their issues" part that I have a problem with. If I'm going to contribute my work for free with the expectation that dissemination will be free, I want ANYONE to be able to sell the finished product, profit or not, not just the editor. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Quote from: LMNO on April 22, 2009, 05:13:52 PM
QuoteI was gonna split my profits with Telarus.
I think it should be up to the editor what they do with their issues and any revenue potentially generated from them.
I'd like to be the first one to profit off my labor.
Yeah. So, anyway...
Still sounds like discussion to me...
"I was..."
"I think..."
"I'd like..."
And several times he clearly stated that he was trying to DISCUSS it... not decide it. I didn't see a single instance where Cram said anything close to "It's MINE AND I WILL DO WHAT I WANT WITH IT, FUCK YOU".
If he had, I would have hit him with a stick.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 05:21:06 PM
Rat, whether posting online is a "good idea" is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION, which is about respect and legality. How I protect my copyright is beside the point. The fact that someone might be able to get away with stealing other people's work is simply not relevant. It's a straw man.
I didn't intend it to be a straw man, because it didn't replace my argument... its just in addition to.
Quote
This whole discussion has taken place countless times on countless other forums, including the ISGB forum which is a forum for a trade organization which has a lawyer who is highly versed in copyright law. Don't bother with your "I schmooze with lawyers" appeal-to-authority argument... again, it's irrelevant.
Thats fine, I wrote what information I have available to me, with regard to copyright on the net. If its useful to some people, good. If its not, fine. If you choose to rely on PD.com being live to protect IP, then thats OK. i don't think its a good idea.
Quote
What is relevant here is whether this community is going to choose to respect the authors who contribute not only to the forum discussions, but also to collaborative projects like Intermittens. This is an issue of community standards. I feel that a consensus on this is important, because otherwise I believe that a lot of people will pull their work and stop contributing. It certainly isn't an issue of money, but of intent.
I agree with you 100%
Quote
Regardless of how I've protected my copyright, it wouldn't be worth it for me to sue an Intermittens editor for misappropriating my work, but if that was to become the "community standard" here, it would leave a sour taste in my mouth and I would be unlikely to participate in any future projects, or to post my work here, and I know that I am not the only person who feels this way.
I agree with you 100%
Quote
For the record, to the best of my knowledge I have never declared any of my work "kopyleft", and at least one of my pieces that is in an Intermittens issue has also been published elsewhere. For free, of course, but with my permission and proper attribution.
Then Cramulus should have no reason to think he would have a right to sell your work. I was apparently mistaken that you had been one of those that said kopyleft in the kopyleft thread.
What I think is interesting is that, instead of trying to work out the misunderstandings and miscommunications between various board members who feel insulted, this thread has turned into a discussion ON HOW TO JUSTIFY THOSE SAME ACTIONS SOME PEOPLE FOUND INSULTING.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
Thats fine, I wrote what information I have available to me, with regard to copyright on the net. If its useful to some people, good. If its not, fine. If you choose to rely on PD.com being live to protect IP, then thats OK. i don't think its a good idea.
I don't, and I never said I did. That's an assumption you came up with, based on absolutely nothing.
Quote
Then Cramulus should have no reason to think he would have a right to sell your work. I was apparently mistaken that you had been one of those that said kopyleft in the kopyleft thread.
You were mistaken. I never used the word kopyleft, and I said that I would like to be asked, and attributed. I've said this several times. My statement was vague, and I've since then edited it to be clear.
Lots of people who contributed specifically said, in that thread and elsewhere, that their work is not kopyleft.
ETA AFAIK, I'm not even
in issue #1. Whether Cram claims exclusive sales rights to that issue is not directly relevant to me, it's more concern over the principle.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:20:37 PMIf you want your content to be covered under a CC license, you should define that with the content and not in a separate thread. Any post not marked defaults to copyright.
actually that really makes sense to me.
it always bothered me when people say they have stated their work is for non-commercial use in its original form only, then leaving me to find out whether this is the case or not, and it turns out they mention it somewhere halfway a long thread five months ago or so.
even better is that non-marked posts default to copyright, even if their license is stated in another thread. which basically means that, unless the post has a permitting license, the editor should ALWAYS consult the author before publishing.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 05:22:56 PMIsn't that what both 000 and I have been saying?
not really, but it's interesting info nonetheless.
(it's more like an addition to what i was saying, dunno about what you were saying however ;-) )
Since LMNO stated his terms concerning his upcoming issue, I figured I should state mine as clearly as I can:
As with all issues of Intermittens, issue #5 is to be freely distributed as an online PDF. Anyone can host it and post links as long as editorship and authorship is properly credited (i.e. don't edit the PDF to remove or change names).
Under no circumstances will I sell issue #5 for any price, either as a print copy or on a CD or some other digital medium. If I distribute issue #5 in real life it will be entirely at my own expense. If someone wants to sell a print copy of issue #5 for any price whatsoever, speak with myself and the authors first to discuss terms. I personally will accept selling issue #5 for a price equal to or less than the cost of printing, but if any of the contributors object then the person looking to sell will have to negotiate with said contributors.
Obviously, if you decide to fudge it and sell issue #5 for a profit anyway, I can't stop you. You'll be an exploitative dick, but I can't stop you.
Quote from: LMNO on April 22, 2009, 05:29:05 PM
What I think is interesting is that, instead of trying to work out the misunderstandings and miscommunications between various board members who feel insulted, this thread has turned into a discussion ON HOW TO JUSTIFY THOSE SAME ACTIONS SOME PEOPLE FOUND INSULTING.
You're right. That this discussion happened with such venom and immediate assumption of being screwed, by Cram and Telarus no less... seriously affected the way I responded to it. That was probably stupid, but it confounded me that people would A) demand to get some profits from Intermittens and B) be so confused as to what Kopyleft is all about, after previous of discussions on the topic.
To be blunt, Triple Zero had the right solution. For people that want to protect their IP, they need to pick a license and use it. I'm not concerned by my IP on these internet posts and by goddess, I'm srticking with (k) for that reason. If a Discordian magazine isn't willing to print my Discordian ramblings because they're unsure about (k), then I don't really mind not being in their publication. So rather than ranting about what I saw as hunchbrained thinking and Destructive Order, perhaps I should simply have said:
Copyright for people that want copyright
Creative Commons for people that want creative commons
Kopyleft for people that want kopyleft
And for goddess sake, if you are working on a Discordian project don't invoke Mammon halfway through, you'll start a riot.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 05:31:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:28:06 PM
Thats fine, I wrote what information I have available to me, with regard to copyright on the net. If its useful to some people, good. If its not, fine. If you choose to rely on PD.com being live to protect IP, then thats OK. i don't think its a good idea.
I don't, and I never said I did. That's an assumption you came up with, based on absolutely nothing.
Well, I had originally stated 'sombunal people' etc. but then I remembered it was you so I rewrote it and figured you'd understand I was speaking generally with regard to protecting IP via Internet Post. Sorry if that was unclear.
QuoteYou were mistaken.
Err, yeah I just said that...
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 22, 2009, 05:39:50 PM
it always bothered me when people say they have stated their work is for non-commercial use in its original form only, then leaving me to find out whether this is the case or not, and it turns out they mention it somewhere halfway a long thread five months ago or so.
even better is that non-marked posts default to copyright, even if their license is stated in another thread. which basically means that, unless the post has a permitting license, the editor should ALWAYS consult the author before publishing.
I agree. For kopyleft, a silly thread is fine, since its meaningless legally and IMO says "I'm not worried about my stuff as IP, do what you want, have a nice day". For copyright, it doesn't matter, since its the default (as you said)
However, for any creative commons etc, posters should clearly state that in their post.
Also, talking to contributors before selling their work is just a good idea to forestall issues like this.
This thread is a fantastic argument for birth control.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 05:48:13 PM
Well, I had originally stated 'sombunal people' etc. but then I remembered it was you so I rewrote it and figured you'd understand I was speaking generally with regard to protecting IP via Internet Post. Sorry if that was unclear.
If you are directly engaged in conversation with one person and you say "you", it is likely to be perceived as meaning "you". However, you don't have to substitute a stupid made-up word, but rather can use the word typically chosen for syntax and clarity in that situation, which is "someone".
Quote from: Dr Hoopla on April 22, 2009, 06:03:18 PM
This thread is a fantastic argument for birth control.
I think it's a legitimate conversation that clearly needed to be had, due to the wide array of opinions and varying levels of sensitivity on the subject.
Considering this is a Discordian board, the only thing to do is treat everyone as individuals.
Nigel, if you wrote something for an Intermittens:
A) Would you want that issue to be sold for a possible profit, and
B) Would you like to receive a portion of that profit as payment?
Repeat as necessary for all involved with that current issue.
FTR, I won't be selling #3 in any shape, way, or form.
For one, I'm a lazy bastard.
For two, I don't think anyone would buy it. Not because we didn't have some good shit in there, but because it IS good shit that would be swimming in the vast oceans of foul shit that is the internets.
In other words, I agree with P3nt.
This whole thing was great right up until we started thinking about money. Fuck money, let's just get some fuckers to read this shit so there won't be so many dipshits walking around breathing my air!!!! :argh!:
Quote from: RWHN on April 22, 2009, 09:28:45 PM
FTR, I won't be selling #3 in any shape, way, or form.
For one, I'm a lazy bastard.
For two, I don't think anyone would buy it. Not because we didn't have some good shit in there, but because it IS good shit that would be swimming in the vast oceans of foul shit that is the internets.
In other words, I agree with P3nt.
This whole thing was great right up until we started thinking about money. Fuck money, let's just get some fuckers to read this shit so there won't be so many dipshits walking around breathing my air!!!! :argh!:
IMO, this is good zoomy motorcycle.
I am always astounded that I use five times as many words and some spag like the Rev here states it better in one paragraph.
:lulz:
Quote from: RWHN on April 22, 2009, 09:28:45 PM
FTR, I won't be selling #3 in any shape, way, or form.
For one, I'm a lazy bastard.
For two, I don't think anyone would buy it. Not because we didn't have some good shit in there, but because it IS good shit that would be swimming in the vast oceans of foul shit that is the internets.
In other words, I agree with P3nt.
This whole thing was great right up until we started thinking about money. Fuck money, let's just get some fuckers to read this shit so there won't be so many dipshits walking around breathing my air!!!! :argh!:
It's not about money for me, or for many other people, RWHN. It's about respect, and consent. I
like the original idea of intermittens; a collaborative free-for-all that would be distributed by whoever felt like it. I don't like the idea of editors laying claim to the exclusive right to print and sell it,
especially not in combination with the idea that editors have carte blanche to anything and everything anyone has posted to this board, permission granted or not.
As long as there is a consensus that neither of those are considered ethically acceptable by this community, I will continue to participate, gladly.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 09:41:10 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 22, 2009, 09:28:45 PM
FTR, I won't be selling #3 in any shape, way, or form.
For one, I'm a lazy bastard.
For two, I don't think anyone would buy it. Not because we didn't have some good shit in there, but because it IS good shit that would be swimming in the vast oceans of foul shit that is the internets.
In other words, I agree with P3nt.
This whole thing was great right up until we started thinking about money. Fuck money, let's just get some fuckers to read this shit so there won't be so many dipshits walking around breathing my air!!!! :argh!:
It's not about money for me, or for many other people, RWHN. It's about respect, and consent. I like the original idea of intermittens; a collaborative free-for-all that would be distributed by whoever felt like it. I don't like the idea of editors laying claim to the exclusive right to print and sell it, especially not in combination with the idea that editors have carte blanche to anything and everything anyone has posted to this board, permission granted or not.
As long as there is a consensus that neither of those are considered ethically acceptable by this community, I will continue to participate, gladly.
To be fair, the only person that has said they would rape the forums is P3nt... no one else. As for respect and consent, its not like this stuff was stolen, misattributed or printed without consent.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 09:41:10 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 22, 2009, 09:28:45 PM
FTR, I won't be selling #3 in any shape, way, or form.
For one, I'm a lazy bastard.
For two, I don't think anyone would buy it. Not because we didn't have some good shit in there, but because it IS good shit that would be swimming in the vast oceans of foul shit that is the internets.
In other words, I agree with P3nt.
This whole thing was great right up until we started thinking about money. Fuck money, let's just get some fuckers to read this shit so there won't be so many dipshits walking around breathing my air!!!! :argh!:
It's not about money for me, or for many other people, RWHN. It's about respect, and consent. I like the original idea of intermittens; a collaborative free-for-all that would be distributed by whoever felt like it. I don't like the idea of editors laying claim to the exclusive right to print and sell it, especially not in combination with the idea that editors have carte blanche to anything and everything anyone has posted to this board, permission granted or not.
As long as there is a consensus that neither of those are considered ethically acceptable by this community, I will continue to participate, gladly.
To be fair, the only person that has said they would rape the forums is P3nt... no one else. As for respect and consent, its not like this stuff was stolen, misattributed or printed without consent.
I recognize that. However, since the subject has been raised, and quite a few people seemed on board with it or were defending it, I think it's important to clearly establish whether that is or is not considered generally acceptable. I am not comfortable posting my writing here unless it is generally understood that stealing work is frowned upon by the community as a whole. That won't prevent anyone from doing it anyway, but if it's considered shitheel behavior, it will discourage it tremendously.
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 10:02:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 09:45:55 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 09:41:10 PM
Quote from: RWHN on April 22, 2009, 09:28:45 PM
FTR, I won't be selling #3 in any shape, way, or form.
For one, I'm a lazy bastard.
For two, I don't think anyone would buy it. Not because we didn't have some good shit in there, but because it IS good shit that would be swimming in the vast oceans of foul shit that is the internets.
In other words, I agree with P3nt.
This whole thing was great right up until we started thinking about money. Fuck money, let's just get some fuckers to read this shit so there won't be so many dipshits walking around breathing my air!!!! :argh!:
It's not about money for me, or for many other people, RWHN. It's about respect, and consent. I like the original idea of intermittens; a collaborative free-for-all that would be distributed by whoever felt like it. I don't like the idea of editors laying claim to the exclusive right to print and sell it, especially not in combination with the idea that editors have carte blanche to anything and everything anyone has posted to this board, permission granted or not.
As long as there is a consensus that neither of those are considered ethically acceptable by this community, I will continue to participate, gladly.
To be fair, the only person that has said they would rape the forums is P3nt... no one else. As for respect and consent, its not like this stuff was stolen, misattributed or printed without consent.
I recognize that. However, since the subject has been raised, and quite a few people seemed on board with it or were defending it, I think it's important to clearly establish whether that is or is not considered generally acceptable. I am not comfortable posting my writing here unless it is generally understood that stealing work is frowned upon by the community as a whole. That won't prevent anyone from doing it anyway, but if it's considered shitheel behavior, it will discourage it tremendously.
An excellent point.
Allow me to clearly state this:
I WILL NEVER STEAL ANY WORKS FROM THIS FORUM FOR MY OWN PROFIT. I may steal works from this forum to send to friends, post in random places and maybe even create an Intermittens issue with. However, NONE of these will involve any sort of Profit. Also, if you take peoples work without attribution, or try to sell their work without their permission, I think that's a dick move.
On the other hand, P3nT wrote a great rant....
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 10:08:11 PMI may steal works from this forum to send to friends, post in random places and maybe even create an Intermittens issue with. However, NONE of these will involve any sort of Profit.
So, are you saying that you would be perfectly OK taking work posted here and putting it into an issue of Intermittens or another free zine, or reposting it elsewhere for public consumption, without getting permission?
That seems to be what you are saying. I just want to be clear.
I also want to be clear that as far as making a profit goes, I don't give a flying fuck if someone makes a profit. What I'm opposed to is someone taking my work, putting it in a compilation, and then copyrighting the compilation so that no one else can make a profit off of it. If my freely-given writing is going to be in a compilation that can be sold for profit, I want ANYONE to be allowed to sell it for profit. Including some random jackass who had nothing to do with it in the first place. All the way or not at all.
At least in the context of Discordia. My non-Discordian stuff operates under other, situationally-appropriate principles. :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on April 22, 2009, 10:39:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 10:08:11 PMI may steal works from this forum to send to friends, post in random places and maybe even create an Intermittens issue with. However, NONE of these will involve any sort of Profit.
So, are you saying that you would be perfectly OK taking work posted here and putting it into an issue of Intermittens or another free zine, or reposting it elsewhere for public consumption, without getting permission?
That seems to be what you are saying. I just want to be clear.
NO I misstated. "Steal" should have been in quotes. So let me try this again:
I will always request permission before using ANY works in a published format... I may not always ask if I'm grabbing a random rant and using it for nefarious purposes (like dropping something fun in office mailboxes or hanging on a cubicle wall).
Also, I agree with your second post as a personal preference... I don't think its a good idea to copyright something full of Kopyleft or Creative Commons etc... (Though, there is precedence for it ala the PD) Not only because copyright might bar someone else from making use of it, but also because it turns a cool project into a big fight. A week ago, I thought Intermittens was gonna make it for a decent run, now I am concerned that we might not make it past 6 or 7. We lost Cain and ended up with a thread full of fight, over something that we had already succeeded in without questions about Copyright and Profit.
We could have ended this easily at the first page if one or two authors would have said "I don't give consent to have my works used for profit".
:(
I always thought the idea of (k) is maximal propagation. It seems like the perfect thing for what is essentially propaganda (like the PD, and like the not-entirely-(k) BIP) because rather than saying the text is a means (for recognition, profit, respect or anything else), it says the text is the ends - "do *whatever* you want with what I write, I write it so it gets read, any way you reproduce it for whatever reason is fine with me". Profit is to (k) like kryptonite is to bicycles - who gives a fuck? If making a profit drives someone to propagate those words, cool. Heck, it's a great incentive for "someone" to get "my" work out there with zero effort for me...
I think that's a really good approach for the kind of stuff that's written so that it's read. That said, I personally really appreciate being credited on the very rare occasion that anyone reproduces something I wrote (I also like being notified of it), and I can totally understand people wanting to limit the reproduction of all or some of their writing... I just don't think it's necessarily the most conductive way to deal with stuff that you want propagated.
Anyhoo, this thread is a total shitfest. I just wanted to point out that being able to reproduce (k) material for-profit seems to me an integral part of what makes (k) (k). You don't have to agree and I don't see any sense in arguing about it.
If I ever get around to writing rants/pieces/stuff here or on my St. Verbatim blog again, I will make sure to explicitly state that it is (k) in the same sense as described above. This is also what I intended for every piece I have ever posted. (If anyone wants to try to sell an anthology of VERB`'s writing for their own profit without me seeing a cent, go the fuck ahead, I would only be flattered [and laugh at you for the retarded notion].)
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 11:01:53 PM
We could have ended this easily at the first page if one or two authors would have said "I don't give consent to have my works used for profit".
Somebody did. He was angry, and worded it strongly, but he was very clear.
Although of course, it's quite possible that he, or anyone else, might give consent to have work used for profit, if the situation seemed appealing to them, so such a blanket statement would really just be silly.
This whole thread is :retard:
yeah yeah yeah, discussion that needed to be had blah blah blah, but it's still :retard:
:cry:
Quote from: Lysergic on April 21, 2009, 11:12:41 AM
Ok, so Rumkle pointed out that there is a store here in Melbourne that will print magazines for free if they like them, and then sell them and split the profits with the people behind the magazine...
So I was wondering what intermittens crew think.
Would it be a good idea if I can see if this guy will print our magazine and sell them here in aus for profit, with half those profits going back into pd.com?
Or would it be against all that's good and holy to sell kopyleft work?
I guess you could take this thread as a respectful 'no', lys
I'll make one part of this argument very simple:
If Intermittens is intended to be sold for profit, then I do not wish this site to have anything to do with it including hosting links, threads in which the business of publishing/writing/editing Intermittens is discussed, or use of any content posted at this forum that is not specifically marked with a creative commons or public domain license.
period.
oops, looks like we woke someone.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Mgt on April 23, 2009, 12:15:36 AM
I'll make one part of this argument very simple:
If Intermittens is intended to be sold for profit, then I do not wish this site to have anything to do with it including hosting links, threads in which the business of publishing/writing/editing Intermittens is discussed, or use of any content posted at this forum that is not specifically marked with a creative commons or public domain license.
period.
:mittens: :mittens: :mittens:
I can go post another poem now. :mrgreen: I've been waiting for this discussion to be over so I could decide whether to delete them or keep on going.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This fread is a fucking toolbox. I was all "fair enough" until I had a think about it last night and you know what? GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
:argh!:
I have an alternate proposal. You publish anything of mine, for any reason, and you will be buried under a pile of subpeonas so fast your fucking head will spin. I still have a rather large retainer with Irritable John, my attorney back in Illinois, and that is money already spent...so I will have absolutely no problem with lawyering you into bankruptcy, because it won't cost me a dime.
Posting something on the internet does NOT make it public domain, and even if it did, I'd just use procedural monkey business to drive you broke. Please note that the server and the board (ie, ECH and Faust) will be left out of any legal wranglings...you and you alone will be the sole target of the hilarity.
If you think I am bluffing, by all means, do something dumb.
Okay, that being said, and having read most of the thread, I see no reason to continue ranting, or to finish the handbook, or post podcasts. I did it for FUN, not so some fucking tapeworm could make a quick buck off of my writing. You have made it NOT fun, simply by virtue of your above post.
You want to make a buck on writing? Write your own shit, you fucking vulture.
:mittens: The beautiful thing about the fact that 99% of internet posters can't afford to litigate if need be, to protect their work, is that you never know when the other 1% will show up angry, armed, and fully prepared to sue your ass into bankruptcy.
It's that unpredictable 1% that makes it scary enough for leeches that the rest of us can post original poems, essays, and fiction with reasonable peace of mind. As I have been doing since 1990.
Quote from: LMNO on April 22, 2009, 06:17:06 PM
Considering this is a Discordian board, the only thing to do is treat everyone as individuals.
Nigel, if you wrote something for an Intermittens:
A) Would you want that issue to be sold for a possible profit, and
B) Would you like to receive a portion of that profit as payment?
Repeat as necessary for all involved with that current issue.
It's a respect thing. Common fucking decency. ASK, and you can use my shit (for example, you still can), provided it isn't changed, I am credited, and if there's money involved, let me know (I'll PROBABLY send a letter exempting myself from royalties, because there just isn't that much money involved).
But to say "Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two", as a certain hookworm did, pisses me off to the point where I WILL make an issue out of it.
Quote from: Nigel on April 23, 2009, 01:53:00 AM
:mittens: The beautiful thing about the fact that 99% of internet posters can't afford to litigate if need be, to protect their work, is that you never know when the other 1% will show up angry, armed, and fully prepared to sue your ass into bankruptcy.
It's that unpredictable 1% that makes it scary enough for leeches that the rest of us can post original poems, essays, and fiction with reasonable peace of mind. As I have been doing since 1990.
This is the correct answer. Even if I DIDN'T have a huge fucking retainer depreciating away, I'd still make an issue of it.
SELL OUT!!!
Broken AI, check yuor fucking podcast thread in Or Kill Me. You have a message that's been waiting: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20085.0
[/threadjack]
Now that Cainad has made you all *LOOK! WHAT'S OVER THERE!*.....
I have a serious fucking question for you spags. Really real for realness serious. [Which means I'll enjoy it if you want to laugh at me.]
I'd like a simple show of hands, but anything else is your prerogative.
Who would be up for starting an actual non-profit org to publish physical copies of InterMittens? (The lulz here is we would be an actual operating religious non-prophet non-profit. Oh and by 'up for' I mean your name down on the legal paperwork.)
I mainly bring this up because the thought of actually being able to cut people like Cain and Roger(and the rest of you spags) a check for your displaced thoughts makes me go :fnord::fap:
Quote from: Telarus on April 23, 2009, 05:22:24 AM
Now that Cainad has made you all *LOOK! WHAT'S OVER THERE!*.....
I have a serious fucking question for you spags. Really real for realness serious. [Which means I'll enjoy it if you want to laugh at me.]
I'd like a simple show of hands, but anything else is your prerogative.
Who would be up for starting an actual non-profit org to publish physical copies of InterMittens? (The lulz here is we would be an actual operating religious non-prophet non-profit. Oh and by 'up for' I mean your name down on the legal paperwork.)
I mainly bring this up because the thought of actually being able to cut people like Cain and Roger(and the rest of you spags) a check for your displaced thoughts makes me go :fnord::fap:
I've been gradually working toward this very thing, but so far all I have is a domain name, Lighningsource and Bowker accounts, and business registry. If/when I have more cash I'll be able to buy a block of ISBNs and be ready to start printing as a not-for-profit. My plan was to do everything out of my own pocket, I prefer taking the liability on myself so that if I drop the ball and money is lost, it's only my money.
Oh, and I was going to operate as an NFP, not an NP. The paperwork is easier. And I wasn't going to pay anyone, including myself, but just going to try to defray costs a bit. Basically my idea was to run as a Discordian vanity press that would publish anything I could afford to publish, just to get it out there.
I came up with the idea back when I had lots of disposable income, which I no longer do, so who knows if I'll be able to follow through.
Like Dan said upthread, I'm starting a publishing company right about now. (Well my boss is.)
Basically we want to do print on demand for niche folks, so creators dont have to make such risky choices, and we can bring new media out into the world without making big investments on each item. Of course creators will be able to buy in bulk at the cheapass rate, and blah blah blah so many more technical details about this kind of bullshit.
Essentially we also sell stuff online, and split the profits pretty nicely, while accounting for our printing costs and shipping. ECT. ECT.
The meat of the $$$ issue : Even if you are for profit, no one is getting rich off of it. So really, if you split up three cents into fifteen parts, would you even want your cut at that point? :P
The for profit model just makes things cleaner if everyone understands who is doing what, and what the end result is from the get go.
If it was my baby, I would leave Intermittens as is, and collect the best of the best for a biannual print edition, possibly under a different title or spin off title.
Many of these points were probably already made, I am in the habit of not reading entire threads since I'm a jerk.
AND for the record we do have ISBNs.
We are going to be a publisher with its own imprint name and all that, but we will also do things 'off brand'.
In yous guyses cases, we would most likely want it on rather than off, but thats more upto you.
I like what you're doing, it seems to be similar to what I had in mind.
The for-profit model is a lot cleaner in terms of paperwork, definitely. If everyone involved understands that a legal for-profit small press is not actually ever likely to see more than an ameliorated loss, then it absolutely works.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 10:08:11 PM
On the other hand, P3nT wrote a great rant....
:lulz:
I'm glad someone took it in the spirit it was intended :roll:
FTR - I've put a fair bit of work into #6 and then Cain flounces and tells me I'm not allowed to print his shit. Wanna talk about "respect"? Fine, here's the deal - it's a two way street. If you've given me permission to use your stuff and I've already gone to the effort of putting it in, formatting, typesetting and adding gfx and context and then you decide to change your mind just cos you're having a little - toys out pram - moment. Then you just threw my respect away along with your pacifier.
For anyone who is concerned about allowing me to publish let me reiterate -
I am not going to sell your work to pay for my next Ferrari.
Clear enough?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 23, 2009, 01:49:17 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This fread is a fucking toolbox. I was all "fair enough" until I had a think about it last night and you know what? GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY!
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
:argh!:
I have an alternate proposal. You publish anything of mine, for any reason, and you will be buried under a pile of subpeonas so fast your fucking head will spin. I still have a rather large retainer with Irritable John, my attorney back in Illinois, and that is money already spent...so I will have absolutely no problem with lawyering you into bankruptcy, because it won't cost me a dime.
Posting something on the internet does NOT make it public domain, and even if it did, I'd just use procedural monkey business to drive you broke. Please note that the server and the board (ie, ECH and Faust) will be left out of any legal wranglings...you and you alone will be the sole target of the hilarity.
If you think I am bluffing, by all means, do something dumb.
Okay, that being said, and having read most of the thread, I see no reason to continue ranting, or to finish the handbook, or post podcasts. I did it for FUN, not so some fucking tapeworm could make a quick buck off of my writing. You have made it NOT fun, simply by virtue of your above post.
You want to make a buck on writing? Write your own shit, you fucking vulture.
Which part of "I'm not planning on making money from it" didn't you understand you fucking imbecile?
I'm in half a mind to use some heavily edited rant of yours in #6 just to illustrate how fucking impotent your "I HAZ ARMY OF LAWYERS" claim actually is.
But I won't. Cos that'd be just as immature as threatening me with the wrath of Petrocelli in the first place. :retard:
QuoteIf it was my baby, I would leave Intermittens as is, and collect the best of the best for a biannual print edition, possibly under a different title or spin off title.
Now THAT seems like a reasonable proposal... and it came from Chaoflux!! :asplode:
:wink:
You all deserve all the shit you get for this thread.
So much for group projects and not trying to make a buck off other people.
I don't see why you all think Cram is secretly a nasty backstabber who would not only sell you out at the first opportunity, but also suddenly become dumb enough to tell you about it before the opportunity even came along.
He didn't TRY to make a buck off other people. HE ASKED ABOUT IT. AND YOU SHAT ON HIM.
Demonizing Cram for wanting to be a little less broke is highly fucked up. Assuming he didn't want to share it fairly is disgusting beyond words.
:vom: on your face.
Quote from: NeT@uNGr0t on April 23, 2009, 03:51:56 PM
I don't see why you all think Cram is secretly a nasty backstabber who would not only sell you out at the first opportunity, but also suddenly become dumb enough to tell you about it before the opportunity even came along.
He didn't TRY to make a buck off other people. HE ASKED ABOUT IT. AND YOU SHAT ON HIM.
Demonizing Cram for wanting to be a little less broke is highly fucked up. Assuming he didn't want to share it fairly is disgusting beyond words.
:vom: on your face.
The East German judge awards 2/10. Needs more hysterical freaking out!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2009, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 10:08:11 PM
On the other hand, P3nT wrote a great rant....
:lulz:
I'm glad someone took it in the spirit it was intended :roll:
FTR - I've put a fair bit of work into #6 and then Cain flounces and tells me I'm not allowed to print his shit. Wanna talk about "respect"? Fine, here's the deal - it's a two way street. If you've given me permission to use your stuff and I've already gone to the effort of putting it in, formatting, typesetting and adding gfx and context and then you decide to change your mind just cos you're having a little - toys out pram - moment. Then you just threw my respect away along with your pacifier.
For anyone who is concerned about allowing me to publish let me reiterate - I am not going to sell your work to pay for my next Ferrari.
Clear enough?
Oh, so now this:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
...was a work of fiction, and not a response to the thread?
I could give a flying fuck whether you're going to try to profit, what I have a problem with is your completely shitty, condescending attitude toward everyone who has ever written anything they gave a fuck about and posted it on this board.
And now you don't even have the respect or balls to apologize - instead you're pretending it was a joke most of us are just too stupid to get.
Quote from: Pope Fred St. Pete St. Fred on April 23, 2009, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2009, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 10:08:11 PM
On the other hand, P3nT wrote a great rant....
:lulz:
I'm glad someone took it in the spirit it was intended :roll:
FTR - I've put a fair bit of work into #6 and then Cain flounces and tells me I'm not allowed to print his shit. Wanna talk about "respect"? Fine, here's the deal - it's a two way street. If you've given me permission to use your stuff and I've already gone to the effort of putting it in, formatting, typesetting and adding gfx and context and then you decide to change your mind just cos you're having a little - toys out pram - moment. Then you just threw my respect away along with your pacifier.
For anyone who is concerned about allowing me to publish let me reiterate - I am not going to sell your work to pay for my next Ferrari.
Clear enough?
Oh, so now this:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
...was a work of fiction, and not a response to the thread?
I could give a flying fuck whether you're going to try to profit, what I have a problem with is your completely shitty, condescending attitude toward everyone who has ever written anything they gave a fuck about and posted it on this board.
And now you don't even have the respect or balls to apologize - instead you're pretending it was a joke most of us are just too stupid to get.
I'll type this real slow, try to keep up. My response was a deliberate overreaction to what I saw as a lot of people overreacting to something really fucking stupid. Apologise? Kiss my ass. As far as I'm concerned the only person due an apology is Cram. Poor guy tried to open a discussion about the prospect of making some money on Intermittens which, the way I see it, would only benefit the community (by paying for a slice of the server costs) or the individual authors/editors by sharing profits. Okay so he might have worded some of it in a way that could be misconstrued but FFS it's not some muppet from a money grabbing publishing company who started this fread its Cramulus. Bit of perspective people. If you honestly think Cram is the kind of person who would seriously consider ripping everyone here off then your head is up your arse and I sure as hell aint apologising for trolling you about it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2009, 05:20:44 PM
Quote from: Pope Fred St. Pete St. Fred on April 23, 2009, 04:47:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2009, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 10:08:11 PM
On the other hand, P3nT wrote a great rant....
:lulz:
I'm glad someone took it in the spirit it was intended :roll:
FTR - I've put a fair bit of work into #6 and then Cain flounces and tells me I'm not allowed to print his shit. Wanna talk about "respect"? Fine, here's the deal - it's a two way street. If you've given me permission to use your stuff and I've already gone to the effort of putting it in, formatting, typesetting and adding gfx and context and then you decide to change your mind just cos you're having a little - toys out pram - moment. Then you just threw my respect away along with your pacifier.
For anyone who is concerned about allowing me to publish let me reiterate - I am not going to sell your work to pay for my next Ferrari.
Clear enough?
Oh, so now this:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 22, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
This is shit we type on the internets. If you think you can make money on something you've written then go make some fucking money on it. Don't post it in a goddamn message board. Here's the deal - I will use whatever the hell I goddamn well please for #6 (permission or not) If you aint happy with this guess what - that's right you can go fuck yourself. Or grow the fuck up, one of the two.
I'm not planning on making money from it, you sure as hell don't seem to be. If someone else manages it then well fucking done that guy. You want to get all butthurt cos you never thought of it then be my guest but FFS we're not talking the great american novel here and if we are then save it on an encrypted hard drive an guard it with your life. Don't broadcast it in cyberspace, don't expect some joke hippy play on the word "copyright" to somehow protect you.
...was a work of fiction, and not a response to the thread?
I could give a flying fuck whether you're going to try to profit, what I have a problem with is your completely shitty, condescending attitude toward everyone who has ever written anything they gave a fuck about and posted it on this board.
And now you don't even have the respect or balls to apologize - instead you're pretending it was a joke most of us are just too stupid to get.
I'll type this real slow, try to keep up. My response was a deliberate overreaction to what I saw as a lot of people overreacting to something really fucking stupid. Apologise? Kiss my ass. As far as I'm concerned the only person due an apology is Cram. Poor guy tried to open a discussion about the prospect of making some money on Intermittens which, the way I see it, would only benefit the community (by paying for a slice of the server costs) or the individual authors/editors by sharing profits. Okay so he might have worded some of it in a way that could be misconstrued but FFS it's not some muppet from a money grabbing publishing company who started this fread its Cramulus. Bit of perspective people. If you honestly think Cram is the kind of person who would seriously consider ripping everyone here off then your head is up your arse and I sure as hell aint apologising for trolling you about it.
This is the same sentiment that set me off as well...
Out of all the people on this board, Cramulus and Telarus would be among the last I would suspect of trying to rip someone off. Lys, of course, is an evil capitalist pig...
I don't need to apologize to Cramulus because I didn't accuse him of anything. Direct your ire at an appropriate person, please.
You think you don't need to apologize for raining shit on EVERYONE who posts their work here, because you think a couple of people overreacted? You basically flipped the bird to me and everyone else who contributes, and you think it's completely justified and you don't need apologize, and can in fact continue being insulting toward me, because someone ELSE got pissed at Cram.
OK then.
I will definitely not ever voluntarily contribute anything to any project you try to organize, knowing how you feel about the "help".
I just thought P3nt was saying, if you have something you think is really good, and that you think you would like to maintain some rights over it, don't post it here. He wasn't suggesting, I don't think, that because people are posting stuff here then that stuff is shit, but that if any of us are going to have problems with losing control over how our stuff might get spread, repackaged, etc., we should consider whether it is wise to put it here at all. Not just because of what someone HERE might do with it, but the myriad of anonymous people who never sign up here. The Internet is still pretty much the wild west.
That was my interpretation anyway.
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 06:38:22 PM
I just thought P3nt was saying, if you have something you think is really good, and that you think you would like to maintain some rights over it, don't post it here. He wasn't suggesting, I don't think, that because people are posting stuff here then that stuff is shit, but that if any of us are going to have problems with losing control over how our stuff might get spread, repackaged, etc., we should consider whether it is wise to put it here at all. Not just because of what someone HERE might do with it, but the myriad of anonymous people who never sign up here. The Internet is still pretty much the wild west.
That was my interpretation anyway.
TITCM
If I have ideas that I want to make money from or keep my IRL name exclusively attached to, I don't post it here. That means shite like The Iconoclast's Manifesto is up for grabs, in terms of publication. It's already published on Verwirrung under my interwebs name, so anyone could theoretically steal it and make buttloads of money by claiming it as theirs, but at least I and everyone else here would know they were a stinking liar. That's good enough for me, personally.
For fucks sake. ALL I WANT is a "professional looking" (and preferably as-cheap-as-possible) version of Intermittens to leave around coffee shops and other strategic locations. I want to present you bloody irritable spags in the best light possible in future jakes/gasms instead of having people immediately dismiss the work as "just some crappy zine on stapled together printer paper".
I also think Danny's idea was good, and I'll put some planning towards that. If/When that happens, I'll make sure to run it by each author/submitter and if they don't want the free exposure, then that's their choice.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 23, 2009, 05:20:44 PMAs far as I'm concerned the only person due an apology is Cram. Poor guy tried to open a discussion about the prospect of making some money on Intermittens which, the way I see it, would only benefit the community (by paying for a slice of the server costs) or the individual authors/editors by sharing profits. Okay so he might have worded some of it in a way that could be misconstrued but FFS it's not some muppet from a money grabbing publishing company who started this fread its Cramulus. Bit of perspective people. If you honestly think Cram is the kind of person who would seriously consider ripping everyone here off then your head is up your arse and I sure as hell aint apologising for trolling you about it.
THIS.
Quote from: Pope Fred St. Pete St. Fred on April 23, 2009, 04:47:26 PMI could give a flying fuck whether you're going to try to profit, what I have a problem with is your completely shitty, condescending attitude toward everyone who has ever written anything they gave a fuck about and posted it on this board.
And now you don't even have the respect or balls to apologize - instead you're pretending it was a joke most of us are just too stupid to get.
most? please to speak for yourself. i got it just fine. you're the one making a big deal about an obvious hyperbole.
Quote from: Pope Fred St. Pete St. Fred on April 22, 2009, 11:44:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 22, 2009, 11:01:53 PM
We could have ended this easily at the first page if one or two authors would have said "I don't give consent to have my works used for profit".
Somebody did. He was angry, and worded it strongly, but he was very clear.
yes but he also flipped the fuck out, denied use of any of his pieces for Intermittens (regardless of whether the issue would be sold), flounced and threw in his mod-hat over it. A complete overreaction, charging the rest of the discussion in a very negative colour instead of the open constructive manner about ways of distributing Intermittens in print it could have been.
Everybody knows Cramulus, Lys or Telarus wouldnt have gone against the wishes of the authors. Just stating "I dont want my stuff used for profit" would have been enough, even if it's a reminder.
If all the positive creative energy over the Intermittens projects washes out because of this thread, it is not Cram or Lys that are to blame for merely bringing up a subject.
Quote from: TGRROkay, that being said, and having read most of the thread, I see no reason to continue ranting, or to finish the handbook, or post podcasts. I did it for FUN, not so some fucking tapeworm could make a quick buck off of my writing.
gee why doesnt that surprise me :roll: it was only a matter of time before something, *anything* would happen. last time (POEE, 3 years ago) you didnt get past chapter one, was there a similar situation, someone pissed you off? I just got around these places, I never heard anything about it.
so you're gonna let P3NT scare you into silence over this? even though he obviously wasnt serious. but this is SERIOUS BUSINESS to you, isnt it? what's that you said about fun? no? which is it? see P3NT wasnt serious, but any moron on the internet could come here, copypasta your work, try and make a profit, and you wouldnt even know about it. but you never let that bother you, did you? but P3NT makes a remark and no more candy for PD.
if anyone, it would be the PD spags that would drop such a publication at the merest statement of discontent from an author. not the random anonymous moron from the internet. the PD spag would receive so much public scorn from it, it would not be funny, outcast from the tribe, worst punishment. but you threaten him with a lawsuit. i'm assuming you are completely for real about what you're saying (having read MSY), and in that case it makes me go what. the. fuck. get a sense of perspective. so didnt tentasticle stalk you and phone your dad or granddad or something? but P3NT gets legal doom for a flippant remark?
to me this is no longer about copyrights. i've given my views about that several pages ago, and as far as I can gather, there is not much disagreement. you ask for permission first, simple as that.
instead, this is about kicking a creative collaborative project in the crotch, about freaking the fuck out and flouncing, about threatening with heavy duty legal cases and running people bankrupt over the mere suggestion of a hint to a non existant profit margin that wouldn realistically amount to no more than $15 of which "your share" would perhaps be a hypothetical
one or two dollars. and the result?
of course nobody sells anything. but that wouldnt have happened either way if people disagreed to it. but right now Cram is seriously rethinking whether he's gonna put energy into Intermittens after he finishes issue Lesser Poop, not because he can't make a profit, but because he's getting really sick and tired of having to waste his energy on that dumb rockstar attitude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRhjBq2kYj4&feature=related) of you guys. and I bet he's not the only one. I bet there's people with a brilliant idea for a group project that are going to think twice now, because they might take one misstep, make a suggestion they believe is innocent and worth discussing, and get flamed to a crisp.
Great work, you assholes.
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 06:38:22 PM
I just thought P3nt was saying, if you have something you think is really good, and that you think you would like to maintain some rights over it, don't post it here. He wasn't suggesting, I don't think, that because people are posting stuff here then that stuff is shit, but that if any of us are going to have problems with losing control over how our stuff might get spread, repackaged, etc., we should consider whether it is wise to put it here at all. Not just because of what someone HERE might do with it, but the myriad of anonymous people who never sign up here. The Internet is still pretty much the wild west.
That was my interpretation anyway.
That's not what he wrote, though. You can "interpret" it any way you want, but I interpreted what he wrote literally. Taken literallly, it was pretty fucking rude.
Also, telling people what they "shouldn't do" with their own work is pretty douchebaggy IMO. Sometimes people have reasons for wanting to post stuff on the Internet, and they can make their own decisions without a pack of holier-than-thous telling them that if they want to keep ownership of their work, they should keep it to themselves. Sure, once you publish anything, in any form, it's "out there" and can be misappropriated or plagiarized. Fuck, when I worked in a bookstore I saw a Neruda poem in a freshly-published "new poet" anthology. Once it's circulating in any form, some assholes somewhere are probably going to abuse it, and it only counts against them if they get caught. Does that mean that no one should ever post/publish/share their writing or artwork?
I, personally, think that would be stupid. The opinion "Don't post it if you want to keep your rights to it" has been argued so many times online for so many years anything we say is simply redundant at this point. Yes, once something is on the net it is impossible to be sure no one is misappropriating it... and that's a tradeoff many people have been willing to make for whatever benefit THEY THINK they are gaining by posting it.
Whether random strangers are lifting essays from this site and republishing them elsewhere is IRRELEVANT. The only thing that concerns me is whether that kind of disrespect toward each other within our group, within this particular branch of Discordia, is going to be embraced or discarded.
So far, we've lost the contributions of two damn decent writers because of certain assumptions and attitudes toward their work. Maybe that should be considered with some weight, if it matters at all to any of you. Regardless of whether you think people should post work they care about keeping their copyright to.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 23, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
Quote from: Pope Fred St. Pete St. Fred on April 23, 2009, 04:47:26 PMI
And now you don't even have the respect or balls to apologize - instead you're pretending it was a joke most of us are just too stupid to get.
most? please to speak for yourself. i got it just fine. you're the one making a big deal about an obvious hyperbole.
OK, so it's just me and Roger who were too stupid to get the joke, and rather than explain he just insults me further.
And now, of course, we're prima donnas who are ruining things for everyone?
This collaboration stuff has been going on since the PD06 days. There's never been any strife except for the occassional creative differences arguments until now when the idea of selling something was introduced. The easy solution was, "Hey, don't sell MY stuff." Like others have said, Cram has demonstrated himself to be a pretty upstanding guy and I'm fairly certain that's all it would take for him to not do something. So where is the rub after that? Why all the hub-bub about something that has such an easy solution? I really don't understand it at all. It really feels like some people wanted this to be a big problem to justify some rash conclusions and behavior.
It's called communication people.
To be clear, whether or not there were underlying issues, Cain's main point of contention was that someone thought it might be a good idea to make a profit from intermittens, and not share that profit with the writers.
Fin. The end.
The whole business of copyright happened later.
I don't think this was really the issue. He has a habit of melting down completely every four months or so... I expected another meltdown since last week when he flipped out for no reason in my "Free Speech" thread. Something else is going on with him. Any rational person would ask why and merely ask to have their work pulled out of the material in question.
The rest of the flipping out is needless drama. Cram never needed to say anything at all, and could have been selling copies the whole time. He should be off the hook since he was honest enough to even mention it in the first place.
Get the sand out of your pussies.
In Cain's defense... it sounds like he has some serious IRL problems which may have influenced his actions.
And as I commented in another thread it is probably good for him to take some time away. It was good for me while I was away. All I'm getting at is with this issue of printing and selling Intermittens, the best way to solve disagreements is to sit around the table and discuss them. Not walk away from the table in disgust and then say you're not going to play at all.
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 07:56:24 PM
And as I commented in another thread it is probably good for him to take some time away. It was good for me while I was away. All I'm getting at is with this issue of printing and selling Intermittens, the best way to solve disagreements is to sit around the table and discuss them. Not walk away from the table in disgust and then say you're not going to play at all.
IAWTC
Maybe we should have a subforum called "THE TABLE" where we can go discuss stuff... keeping this in mind (rather than our normal forums where we love to pour boiling oil down each others pants).
I mean, I knida like when Nigel pours boiling oil down my pants, but mixing business and pleasure isn't a good idea. :transmet:
:lulz:
this is probably the most depressing thread ever.
Quote from: Faust on April 23, 2009, 08:54:59 PM
this is probably the most depressing fucking retarded thread ever.
fixed.
and yeah, it's a little hard to believe that anyone here actually thought Cram's intentions were to screw over the rest of the PD-ites, you know, given that he MADE THE OP ITT AS A MEANS TO FIND OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT OF HIS IDEA.
get a fucking grip, kids. No one is trying to steal your golden words, at least, no one who is a regular poster here.
Quote from: RWHN on April 23, 2009, 06:38:22 PM
I just thought P3nt was saying, if you have something you think is really good, and that you think you would like to maintain some rights over it, don't post it here.
Okay.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 23, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
gee why doesnt that surprise me :roll: it was only a matter of time before something, *anything* would happen. last time (POEE, 3 years ago) you didnt get past chapter one, was there a similar situation, someone pissed you off? I just got around these places, I never heard anything about it.
Eat a dick.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 23, 2009, 10:49:35 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 23, 2009, 08:54:59 PM
this is probably the most depressing fucking retarded thread ever.
fixed.
and yeah, it's a little hard to believe that anyone here actually thought Cram's intentions were to screw over the rest of the PD-ites, you know, given that he MADE THE OP ITT AS A MEANS TO FIND OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT OF HIS IDEA.
get a fucking grip, kids. No one is trying to steal your golden words, at least, no one who is a regular poster here.
I don't know if I read that wrong or if you've read mine and crams names wrong, but I started the OP ITT as a means to find out what you guys think of my idea.
My idea was simply that I found a place that *might* print the mags for free and distribute them at a profit. (That's the idea anyway.)
From what I already knew and have re-confirmed again, I don't actually NEED permission from any of you guys to do what I want with intermittens considering its public domain and "kopyleft" status.
I never had to bring this up, all I wanted to do was to see what people thought of the idea.
I think its now obvious that it was a bad idea telling you all.
Maybe I should have just done it and secretly sent you all money if it had been a success (or just the board if it was a minor success), or just shut up and kept it a failed experiment if it hadn't been a success.
Maybe I should just do it and if its a success keep all the money anyway...
I mean, what are you guys going to do about it besides bitch and moan and hate me (IF you find out that I did).
But seriously, I'm most likely now not going to a do a thing, and instead of submitting stuff for future IM issues, just try and make my own free magazine and screw the rest of you guys!
Wow, way to flock with the black sheep. You rebel, you. :lulz: :evil:
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 05:28:14 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 23, 2009, 10:49:35 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 23, 2009, 08:54:59 PM
this is probably the most depressing fucking retarded thread ever.
fixed.
and yeah, it's a little hard to believe that anyone here actually thought Cram's intentions were to screw over the rest of the PD-ites, you know, given that he MADE THE OP ITT AS A MEANS TO FIND OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT OF HIS IDEA.
get a fucking grip, kids. No one is trying to steal your golden words, at least, no one who is a regular poster here.
I don't know if I read that wrong or if you've read mine and crams names wrong, but I started the OP ITT as a means to find out what you guys think of my idea.
My idea was simply that I found a place that *might* print the mags for free and distribute them at a profit. (That's the idea anyway.)
From what I already knew and have re-confirmed again, I don't actually NEED permission from any of you guys to do what I want with intermittens considering its public domain and "kopyleft" status.
I never had to bring this up, all I wanted to do was to see what people thought of the idea.
I think its now obvious that it was a bad idea telling you all.
Maybe I should have just done it and secretly sent you all money if it had been a success (or just the board if it was a minor success), or just shut up and kept it a failed experiment if it hadn't been a success.
Maybe I should just do it and if its a success keep all the money anyway...
I mean, what are you guys going to do about it besides bitch and moan and hate me (IF you find out that I did).
But seriously, I'm most likely now not going to a do a thing, and instead of submitting stuff for future IM issues, just try and make my own free magazine and screw the rest of you guys!
Lys, for the most part no one was even addressing your OP, but Cram's post which came after it, and of course Pent's post which came after that.
As far as Intermittens being public domain, that depends with each issue, because if the articles aren't public domain you actually aren't free to do whatever you want with the issue. You would have to discuss the copyright status of each issue with the contributors, as many have made clear (and were clear from the beginning, as with Cain and Roger) that they retain copyrights to their work.
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2009, 05:52:31 AM
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 05:28:14 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 23, 2009, 10:49:35 PM
Quote from: Faust on April 23, 2009, 08:54:59 PM
this is probably the most depressing fucking retarded thread ever.
fixed.
and yeah, it's a little hard to believe that anyone here actually thought Cram's intentions were to screw over the rest of the PD-ites, you know, given that he MADE THE OP ITT AS A MEANS TO FIND OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT OF HIS IDEA.
get a fucking grip, kids. No one is trying to steal your golden words, at least, no one who is a regular poster here.
I don't know if I read that wrong or if you've read mine and crams names wrong, but I started the OP ITT as a means to find out what you guys think of my idea.
My idea was simply that I found a place that *might* print the mags for free and distribute them at a profit. (That's the idea anyway.)
From what I already knew and have re-confirmed again, I don't actually NEED permission from any of you guys to do what I want with intermittens considering its public domain and "kopyleft" status.
I never had to bring this up, all I wanted to do was to see what people thought of the idea.
I think its now obvious that it was a bad idea telling you all.
Maybe I should have just done it and secretly sent you all money if it had been a success (or just the board if it was a minor success), or just shut up and kept it a failed experiment if it hadn't been a success.
Maybe I should just do it and if its a success keep all the money anyway...
I mean, what are you guys going to do about it besides bitch and moan and hate me (IF you find out that I did).
But seriously, I'm most likely now not going to a do a thing, and instead of submitting stuff for future IM issues, just try and make my own free magazine and screw the rest of you guys!
Lys, for the most part no one was even addressing your OP, but Cram's post which came after it, and of course Pent's post which came after that.
As far as Intermittens being public domain, that depends with each issue, because if the articles aren't public domain you actually aren't free to do whatever you want with the issue. You would have to discuss the copyright status of each issue with the contributors, as many have made clear (and were clear from the beginning, as with Cain and Roger) that they retain copyrights to their work.
That may be true. But's lets pretend I go ahead and print off and sell them anyway.
What are any of you going to do about it?
I'LL SHIT MY PANCE!
Seriously, Lys? My band has a copyright lawyer handy, and I'd be happy to talk to them and refer anyone who feels the need to them or someone they recommend, whether for US or International copyright issues. Especially if intents, copyrights, and limitations are stated beforehand, what would happen is you'd be sued for damages, the legal fees to resolve those damages far out pacing the profit. However, it's the fucking principle, so - hypothetically of course - lawsuit would most likely move forward.
Why even ask that question (hypothetically or no), especially in light of this thread?
Honestly, guys... Can we please all stop swinging our dicks?
I don't know if you noticed, but it looks like Cram has fucked off, as well.
Great. A great Thinker and an active Doer, both gone.
If there has ever been a thread on PD.COM that needed to be locked, moved, and burned, it is this one.
As much as this is a forum based around the concept of strife, I agree.
Quote from: That One Guy on April 24, 2009, 02:37:34 PM
Seriously, Lys? My band has a copyright lawyer handy, and I'd be happy to talk to them and refer anyone who feels the need to them or someone they recommend, whether for US or International copyright issues. Especially if intents, copyrights, and limitations are stated beforehand, what would happen is you'd be sued for damages, the legal fees to resolve those damages far out pacing the profit. However, it's the fucking principle, so - hypothetically of course - lawsuit would most likely move forward.
Why even ask that question (hypothetically or no), especially in light of this thread?
Calm the fuck down.
The only reasons I brought this all up in the first place was because the way I see it, it's a gamble you can't lose on.
It will either flop, and you've lost nothing, or it might get off the ground, and could make money.
It kills several birds with one stone in my mind.
But I know its for some reason, a terrible idea to do this since people all seem really touchy about what their work means to them.
I won't do it, I just think it's a wasted opportunity not to do it.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 07:25:45 AM
That may be true. But's lets pretend I go ahead and print off and sell them anyway.
What are any of you going to do about it?
The only thing I know for sure would happen is that we would hate you for the contempt you displayed to everyone involved.
Also likely is that several involved contributors would pool to hire a lawyer to sue for damages. It would be a pretty straightforward case. We'd probably never be able to collect the judgement, but you would lose money and it would be a real PITA, not to mention blowing any chance of ever collaborating with anyone in the online Discordian community again, plus the record of the lawsuit would be out there making you look like a shady character to anyone else you might want to collaborate with.
EVERYONE. STOP. PLEASE.
I think everyone HAS stopped. On a lot of levels.
Ok, just to make this clear, I have no intentions of doing said plan, I'm just curious about what possible ramifications could occur.
I find it funny that such a small thing means so much to everyone.
I understand, respect and appreciate what you have to say and your wishes.
I just think its strange that you're willing to not risk a $0 investment that may or may not show returns.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 03:22:13 PM
Ok, just to make this clear, I have no intentions of doing said plan, I'm just curious about what possible ramifications could occur.
I find it funny that such a small thing means so much to everyone.
I understand, respect and appreciate what you have to say and your wishes.
I just think its strange that you're willing to not risk a $0 investment that may or may not show returns.
Oh, to be clear, I actually think a ton of people would contribute for free to an issue that you intended to sell for profit, especially if you promised them each a few free copies. I would. It's all about asking and being clear, and not doing it under false premises.
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 07:25:45 AM
That may be true. But's lets pretend I go ahead and print off and sell them anyway.
What are any of you going to do about it?
I would immediately annex Poland and start murdering Joos :argh!:
D/N/T
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2009, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 03:22:13 PM
Ok, just to make this clear, I have no intentions of doing said plan, I'm just curious about what possible ramifications could occur.
I find it funny that such a small thing means so much to everyone.
I understand, respect and appreciate what you have to say and your wishes.
I just think its strange that you're willing to not risk a $0 investment that may or may not show returns.
Oh, to be clear, I actually think a ton of people would contribute for free to an issue that you intended to sell for profit, especially if you promised them each a few free copies. I would. It's all about asking and being clear, and not doing it under false premises.
I like this idea.
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2009, 03:16:19 PM
EVERYONE. STOP. PLEASE.
Will do. Enjoy all :mrgreen:
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2009, 05:52:31 AM
Lys, for the most part no one was even addressing your OP, but Cram's post which came after it, and of course Pent's post which came after that.
Clearly, everything is about Lys, always.
(Glad this project didn't work, cos now I don't need to claim credit for it ;) )
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 03:22:13 PM
Ok, just to make this clear, I have no intentions of doing said plan, I'm just curious about what possible ramifications could occur.
I find it funny that such a small thing means so much to everyone.
I understand, respect and appreciate what you have to say and your wishes.
I just think its strange that you're willing to not risk a $0 investment that may or may not show returns.
money is not everything. even if i had written something freely and it was taken from me and published for someone else's profit i'd be shitty. its the thought of someone using your creative work without your permission which gets most people.
Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on April 26, 2009, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on April 24, 2009, 03:22:13 PM
Ok, just to make this clear, I have no intentions of doing said plan, I'm just curious about what possible ramifications could occur.
I find it funny that such a small thing means so much to everyone.
I understand, respect and appreciate what you have to say and your wishes.
I just think its strange that you're willing to not risk a $0 investment that may or may not show returns.
money is not everything. even if i had written something freely and it was taken from me and published for someone else's profit i'd be shitty. its the thought of someone using your creative work without your permission which gets most people.
This.
And the hints of attitude that writing isn't work, but editing is.
as someone who is a designer who felt like he lost control of what was his lovingly crafted property as it was misused, i feel the pain here.
but all this thread seems hypothetical, yet i guess its good to hash it out so ppl get on the same page.
my puns, decidedly not crafted with love.
Quote from: chaoflux on April 26, 2009, 06:58:46 PM
as someone who is a designer who felt like he lost control of what was his lovingly crafted property as it was misused, i feel the pain here.
but all this thread seems hypothetical, yet i guess its good to hash it out so ppl get on the same page.
my puns, decidedly not crafted with love.
Oh, fuck. Lovecrafty? Jesus H Christ.
:genius:
lol i didnt mean to make an hpl joke i swear!
the fale just oozes out of me, i cant help it
can we just copyright discordja and give royalties to Cain, he deserves it.
I think the thing to do is get Cain a new computer so he can write a fucking book like I keep telling him he should do
or ten books
and then maybe he could make some money.
Writers are a dime a dozen. GOOD writers are rare as hen's teeth.
Hmmm... any contests that we can enter en-mass? We need a way to use the egregore for some random spag's personal benefit, we just need to choose out of genuine need/genuine randomness.
Quote from: Nigel on April 27, 2009, 09:48:42 PM
I think the thing to do is get Cain a new computer so he can write a fucking book like I keep telling him he should do
or ten books
and then maybe he could make some money.
Writers are a dime a dozen. GOOD writers are rare as hen's teeth.
a computer? buy him a typewriter, some cognac, a house in the country and a pipe. sure he'll turn into a reclusive writer but at least we'll get a few good books out of him.
Quote from: Lyris_Nymphetamine on April 27, 2009, 10:04:20 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 27, 2009, 09:48:42 PM
I think the thing to do is get Cain a new computer so he can write a fucking book like I keep telling him he should do
or ten books
and then maybe he could make some money.
Writers are a dime a dozen. GOOD writers are rare as hen's teeth.
a computer? buy him a typewriter, some cognac, a house in the country and a pipe. sure he'll turn into a reclusive writer but at least we'll get a few good books out of him.
Oooo forgot about those.