News:

Endorsement: "I could go so far as to say they simply use Discordianism as a mechanism for causing havoc, and an excuse for mischief."

Main Menu

Collected Intermittens in print?

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, July 29, 2012, 06:34:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

Placid Dingo

#75
August 01, 2012, 02:32:08 PM
Anyway, I didn't mean to crack it, and I'm sorry for the thread detail.

Also, being a nice big collection, it would probably be cool to have an introduction in there.

I'd also love to either write up or see someone else provide a sales pitch pointing out that IM is technically still current and reminding people of the best way to get involved and take on an editorship role.

Related thought; the Project Board could make the whole process of producing new editions a lot smoother too.
Haven't paid rent since 2014 with ONE WEIRD TRICK.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#76
August 01, 2012, 04:08:17 PM
Dingo, print on demand is NEVER cheaper than a publishing run. EVER. That's why people don't use it when they can afford a proper print run.

Some of Doctorow's books are available on Lulu:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?keyWords=doctorow&sorter=relevance-desc

Making a book available to download free or print on demand at cost is not the same as commercial use. The root of the word is "commerce", and by putting it on Lulu at cost I would be neither buying nor selling copyrighted material, nor is Lulu buying nor selling copyrighted material. If I was charging above cost, I would be.

Thanks for creating the opportunity to have this conversation and make that clarification, though.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

tyrannosaurus vex

#77
August 01, 2012, 06:25:37 PM
<WARNING: TROLL AHEAD. IF YOU REACT NEGATIVELY TO THIS POST, IT IS IN NO WAY MY FAULT SINCE I HAVE FOREWARNED YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MERELY INTENDED TO TROLL YOU.>


So if I scan in a bunch of Harry Potter books and sell them on Lulu at cost, I'm not breaking copyright law?


</TROLL>
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

LMNO

#78
August 01, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
I'm pretty sure the copyright on Harry Potter includes "derivitive works", or something to that effect, which prevents the unauthorized reproduction of said work, regardless of whether there is a profit or not.

The CC license in question is "non-commercial" which is somewhat different.

The Good Reverend Roger

#79
August 01, 2012, 06:42:07 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 01, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
I'm pretty sure the copyright on Harry Potter includes "derivitive works", or something to that effect, which prevents the unauthorized reproduction of said work, regardless of whether there is a profit or not.

The CC license in question is "non-commercial" which is somewhat different.

Quote<WARNING: TROLL AHEAD. IF YOU REACT NEGATIVELY TO THIS POST, IT IS IN NO WAY MY FAULT SINCE I HAVE FOREWARNED YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MERELY INTENDED TO TROLL YOU.>
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

#80
August 01, 2012, 06:43:43 PM
I figured that a correct answer right out of the gate would put any speculation to rest.

The Good Reverend Roger

#81
August 01, 2012, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 01, 2012, 06:43:43 PM
I figured that a correct answer right out of the gate would put any speculation to rest.

It occurs to me that we have, once again, steered ourselves back onto the rocks of one of The Topics.  In this case, intellectual property.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

#82
August 01, 2012, 06:46:32 PM
HARD STARBOARD!

The Good Reverend Roger

#83
August 01, 2012, 06:48:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 01, 2012, 06:46:32 PM
HARD STARBOARD!

Whoops.  Over-correction.  Now we're talking about drugs.

You're fired.  Turn the wheel over to Hoops.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

#84
August 01, 2012, 06:49:40 PM
BUT SIR!  HE'S CANADIAN!

tyrannosaurus vex

#85
August 01, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
I don't actually see a problem anyway. All we have to do is not put it on Lulu at all, but to release it in PDF format, as has already been done, but a PDF format which just so happens to be fully compatible with Lulu and whose download page might accidentally include a link to Lulu and, by strange cosmic coincidence, a set of instructions for how to use Lulu to turn a PDF into a physical book.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

The Good Reverend Roger

#86
August 01, 2012, 06:54:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on August 01, 2012, 06:49:40 PM
BUT SIR!  HE'S CANADIAN!

They have hydrofoils.  It will be okay.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

#87
August 02, 2012, 03:13:59 AM
The noncommercial option for Creative Commons licenses is a huge clusterfuck that is best avoided by not using any form of CC-NC:

Quote
On a scale of 1-100 where 1 is "definitely noncommercial" and 100 is "definitely commercial" [...] creators and users gave the specific use case "not-for-profit organization uses work on its site, organization makes enough money from ads to cover hosting costs" ratings of 59.2 and 71.7, respectively.
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/17127

That's not at all what I thought it meant. I thought CC-NC meant as long as you don't exceed "at cost", you're still non-commercial, however, the polls above suggest I was wildly mistaken.

I'm not sure people understand how constricting the NC designation actually is.

From a more in-depth article that goes into detail about how NC licenses may be far more constrictive than one might think, and are best avoided:

Quote
The potential to benefit financially from mere distribution is therefore quite small. Where it exists due to a predominance of old media, it is likely to disappear rapidly. The people who are likely to be hurt by an -NC license are not large corporations, but small publications like weblogs, advertising-funded radio stations, or local newspapers.

Indeed, to make a substantial profit with your work, a company will have to provide added value beyond what is available for free. An -NC license stops any such attempt to add value; this may be the author's intent.

Quote
The Share-Alike principle, while not applicable to monetary benefits, does protect the content from abusive exploitation without forbidding experiments. These experiments, however, are essential to build a true, innovative economy around free content. Especially when dealing with collaborative works, -NC makes such commercial experiments practically impossible, as every single contributor would have to give explicit permission.
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

tyrannosaurus vex

#88
August 02, 2012, 03:50:32 AM
We could just print the Intermittens compilation anyway, with anything contributed by people who haven't given their approval for this incarnation, redacted like government "declassified" documents. It would add to the mystery.
Evil and Unfeeling Arse-Flenser From The City of the Damned.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

#89
August 02, 2012, 06:45:06 AM
Quote from: v3x on August 01, 2012, 06:25:37 PM
<WARNING: TROLL AHEAD. IF YOU REACT NEGATIVELY TO THIS POST, IT IS IN NO WAY MY FAULT SINCE I HAVE FOREWARNED YOU THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MERELY INTENDED TO TROLL YOU.>


So if I scan in a bunch of Harry Potter books and sell them on Lulu at cost, I'm not breaking copyright law?


</TROLL>

That was a lame troll, because copyright law prohibits anyone but the copyright holder distributing copyrighted work whether they charge for it or not.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."

Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7
User actions