The worst thread

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Get some perspective.

I 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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I 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.

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.

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.

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%

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%

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.

[LMNO]

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

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.

[Triple Zero]

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.

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.

Isn'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 )

[Cainad (dec.)]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

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.

You were mistaken.

Err, yeah I just said that...

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.

[hooplala]

This thread is a fantastic argument for birth control.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

[LMNO]

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.

[AFK]

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!!!!   

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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!!!!   

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.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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!!!!   

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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!!!!   

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.