(A)GPL as a license for fiction?

[omk3]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Well clearly the terrorists will have all their plans, names, and timetable in a plain text file and some intrepid border guard will stop their plot to blow up the world's biggest block of cheese.

But of course

Originally Posted by Iphinome

As for copyright the ACTA isn't in effect yet but you can find more information here http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4900/125/

Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I don't know if they still do this, but it happened when I flew to Japan in 2000. I was forced to boot up my laptop so they could search for porn, as it is/was illegal to bring regular adult porn into the country. Rather ironic, coming from Japan.

Heh, so it is a copyright matter after all. You can't import your own porn, you've got to consume theirs!

On a more serious note, how did they search? Just looked at all the images, or did they open zipped files, asked for passwords, etc?

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by omk3

On a more serious note, how did they search? Just looked at all the images, or did they open zipped files, asked for passwords, etc?

I was not allowed to touch the laptop other than pulling it out of my bag, so I had to give them my logon password. I had (and still don't) no idea what my rights were in Japan, and as I wasn't carrying any porn or anything else illegal, I didn't fight the foreign system. They did a cursory search, looked in "My Documents" etc, but I got the feeling they would have spent more time on it if the US military guys weren't pushing them to hurry it up.

But this was all 10 years ago, if they're still doing this sort of thing, hopefully it would be more streamlined, and privacy aware, as corporate laptops often carry sensitive information.

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The only way you can protect copyright in a digital age is to uninvent the digital and retard all progress made to this point. If anything, copyright is becoming less and less important to the wider culture. Not only do I assume that there won't be a way to protect copyright, I'll actively work towards solutions that break said protections at every level.

I actually think copyright is becoming more and more important. With the huge information age that we're experiencing, copyright not only protects the original authors, but provides a level of credibility to the source.

Going back to your initial post (and reading subsequent) I do think that you need to licence your works. Given you want to contribute it freely to the world to do with as they please, well I'm gathering that you'd like them to do with it as they please provided they also keep it open ie: can sell and make money, can modify but can't refrain others from taking the work and doing the same.

That said I don't think the BSD licence in the one for you, my understanding is the BSD licence requires you to acknowledge original contributors, yet are not forced to provide source code with the binary (essentially allowing someone to close it up). I'm finding it a little hard to put that in the context of text.

[J. Strnad]

You aren't really giving it away if you're insisting that your name be appended. Why, but for ego, are you making that stipulation?

If you really want to follow your premise, just put it out there and give it a life of its own. IMHO.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The problem as I see it is that the license does nothing at all. It's a polite plea with the user of the material not to do things that it should, and is their right to do with cultural objects.

So is every license. There are some things one cannot legally do with copyrighted works (of course, many people do them anyway), the license allows some of these things to be done provided some conditions are met. Whether or not users comply with the license is an entirely different matter.

It says you are free to share, which is a redundant statement. Of course you are free to share, that's how the web works, it doesn't work if you don't share, and the material isn't read if it's not shared.

I don't agree. In this context "share" is not only lend your book to someone or tell what the story is about, but actually making copies and giving them away (or selling them). Copyright law typically forbids this, at least at a large scale. Besides, the CC licenses are not only for things in the web, they can also be applied to printed books, for instance.

Then we follow with you may or may not remix this work, which again is a redundant statement. Why exactly wouldn't a creator want her work to be used to create other works?

Ask J. K. Rowling

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The problem as I see it is that the license does nothing at all.

That's simply not true.

It's a polite plea with the user of the material not to do things that it should, and is their right to do with cultural objects.

No. It's a legally binding license, meaning you're free to do certain things provided you adhere to certain conditions. If you're free to do these things anyway (in a fair use context, say) you don't have to follow it's terms ("polite request", in this case, true enough) but where you don't you're given additional rights that you would otherwise not have.

Of course you are free to share, that's how the web works, it doesn't work if you don't share, and the material isn't read if it's not shared.

You might well wish for this to be the case, but copyright law says differently.

Why exactly wouldn't a creator want her work to be used to create other works?

It would obviously depend on the work. I can easily imagine, say, a sculptor creating a piece of work that he wouldn't want to be modified by anybody else.

As a writer without wads of cash in the bank I couldn't defend this in court , and would probably end up spending more money than I would ever recieve in compensation.

Even if that's true in your jurisdiction (it's not in mine, rest assured) this is hardly a fault of the license.

But the same copyright that underpins and is ruining our creative culture on all sides, seems to underpin (and is not changed by) the CC license.

Well, yes. Copyright is a fact of life. It exists of whether you want it to or not, covering your works as well. If you want people to do be able to do all these things you better tell them clearly and in no uncertain legal terms.

[DawnFalcon]

I'd note that in most European countries, you don't need to stand on copyright to have your name attached to something you wrote, you can use your moral rights.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

You aren't really giving it away if you're insisting that your name be appended. Why, but for ego, are you making that stipulation?

If you really want to follow your premise, just put it out there and give it a life of its own. IMHO.

I think you're right on this point, ego is getting in the way of my original intention, and its why I've come to the conclusion that not only should I put my fiction into the public domain, but it also should be without my name attached (or simply authored by anonymous which I'm investigating now).

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

That's simply not true.



No. It's a legally binding license, meaning you're free to do certain things provided you adhere to certain conditions. If you're free to do these things anyway (in a fair use context, say) you don't have to follow it's terms ("polite request", in this case, true enough) but where you don't you're given additional rights that you would otherwise not have.



You might well wish for this to be the case, but copyright law says differently.



It would obviously depend on the work. I can easily imagine, say, a sculptor creating a piece of work that he wouldn't want to be modified by anybody else.



Even if that's true in your jurisdiction (it's not in mine, rest assured) this is hardly a fault of the license.



Well, yes. Copyright is a fact of life. It exists of whether you want it to or not, covering your works as well. If you want people to do be able to do all these things you better tell them clearly and in no uncertain legal terms.

All good points, but I think Public Domain is the way to go for what I want, and also to kill the ego, I will use anonymous as a name. Digital fiction is an exciting world to be involved in at the moment, whichever way you look at it

[GeoffC]

you mean with a pseudonym

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

I actually think copyright is becoming more and more important. With the huge information age that we're experiencing, copyright not only protects the original authors, but provides a level of credibility to the source.

Going back to your initial post (and reading subsequent) I do think that you need to licence your works. Given you want to contribute it freely to the world to do with as they please, well I'm gathering that you'd like them to do with it as they please provided they also keep it open ie: can sell and make money, can modify but can't refrain others from taking the work and doing the same.

That said I don't think the BSD licence in the one for you, my understanding is the BSD licence requires you to acknowledge original contributors, yet are not forced to provide source code with the binary (essentially allowing someone to close it up). I'm finding it a little hard to put that in the context of text.

I'm going in exactly the opposite direction, thanks to this thread. The intention was always to share freely and give the maximum amount of freedom to others. I see now that the only way I can satisfy this need within myself is to release into the Public Domain and without authorial tags (possibly under anonymous, but that's as yet to be determined).

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

you mean with a pseudonym

I use pseudonyms all the time, there's loads of my work floating around on different sites under different names when I've been experimenting. But not any more, I think. I'm actually leaning toward the usage of 'anonymous'. Of course it is as yet to be determined whether this is feasible, but I am looking into it.

[GeoffC]

but but but anonymous is such a common name !!!

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

but but but anonymous is such a common name !!!

Joe Anonymous, Private Eye, scourge of IP hoarders everywhere. *cue dramatic music*

I think what's most attractive is the idea that the writing itself is important, not the name attached (I sort of already knew this from releasing stories under pseudonyms without telling anybody). I had a writing professor who said that without challenge, without risk, writing is pointless. I didn't agree with him at the time, but I'm coming around to that viewpoint more and more. It is in the moment of creation that we gain our rewards, the rest is...well the rest is up to others.

[GeoffC]

What ever you do, keep writing, your grasp of a good story is an inspiration. Problem would be that, if I want to source your work, there's an awful lot of anonymouses out there - even from BC......