(A)GPL as a license for fiction?

[kacir]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

From A to O - a lot of "thou must" - but who can stop the determined?

Well, I see many of people here do not understand how exactly GPL works.

Program distributed under GNU Public Licence is copyrighted. The author keeps the Copyright and gives you permission to copy, modify and distribute the program - either in the original form or your modification.

If I want to distribute program that someone else wrote I need authors permission. GPL gives me that permission. If I disregard the GPL (and refuse to adhere to the "thou must" clauses, for example by refusing to publish my modified sources), I do not have the license to distribute the program and the author can sue me for copyright infringement.

This has happened before.
A Big Router Company -- the BRC -- starts selling routers that contain Peter's Special Routing Program. The BRC does not distribute sources to people it sold routers to. Bam! Peter can sue the manufacturer for copyright infringement. Peter can force the manufacturer to 1.) stop selling that product 2.) publish sources 3.) negotiate special license from him (for example by sponsoring further development).
This has happened. And do not think that Peter (our imaginary author) won't sue the Big Router Company, because he is just a student and has no money for lawyer. He can ask Free Software Foundation for help and he WILL receive it.


So. You want to publish your novel under GPL. What will you demand? That I distribute your novel with the source codes? That when I write fanfiction based on your novel I also publish it under GPL?

Have a look at the BSD license.
It says basically that the Work is copyrighted and anybody can do anything with the Work as long as he acknowledges that you are the author of the original Work and that he won't keep you responsible for any damages ... (whatever) that is caused by use of your Work..

The damages clause might be interesting in case of software. for example if source code of my program was copied and modified to operate Blowout Preventer Control Unit, nobody can hold me responsible for failure.

There are lots of interesting licenses. Mozilla license, Apache license, and Creative Commons.


Yes, it is true that you can not prevent anybody from copying the work, so why bother with permission?
Well, imagine that I find your book on the net and I want to post a link to it on Mobileread.com server. Unless there is clear license that allows me to do that, moderators will delete my link and warn me that I am committing Copyright infringement.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kacir

Well, I see many of people here do not understand how exactly GPL works.

That's the rationale for the thread, few of us are lawyers.


Thank you for your comments, but to my way of thinking you haven't explained how to stop someone making copies/adjusting and calling it their own.

Regarding the example about uploading to modileread.com I am not sure what your point is. Surely there can only be action taken after the upload, and after someone noticing the work is not that of the poster ? And it doesn't stop it being uploaded elsewhere.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

but to my way of thinking you haven't explained how to stop someone making copies/adjusting and calling it their own.

Programmers can recognize their own program when they see it, even when it is a little bit adjusted, modified and with slightly different user interface.
Sometimes it is very surprising that author can identify his own work, even when it is heavily disguised.
You might remember the Sony Rootkit Fiasco.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit

Originally Posted by Wikipedia article

Additionally, further investigation revealed that Sony had created its copyright protection software, in part, using LAME code written by Jon Lech Johansen, violating the GNU General Public License

The above described situation was extremely ironic, because Sony distributed a program (rootkit) that was supposed to protect their ... aehm ... "Intellectual Property", and used stolen code. AND they stole it from Jon Lech Johansen -- also called DVD Jon -- the guy that was the very first programmer to defeat the principal DRM that protects the DVD disks - the CSS system.

When thinking about the GPL license you have to divide the licensees to three categories.

1. Users. They can do pretty much anything, without any "thou shall" clauses.
2. Programmers using the code for their own need (or even the need of the company they work for)
3. Programmers that want to use the code AND distribute the result.

If you want to use a piece of GPL licensed code in your own work, for your own use (that is without distribution), you can do that. It is expressly allowed. The "thou must" clauses kick in ONLY if you distribute the resulting program.

Of course, many people think that they can use a piece of code somebody else wrote and published under GPL license. The Media Sentry programmers that programmed the Sony Rootkit software obviously thought so ;-). If the piece of code is small enough and insignificant enough, you can get away with that, but as the above example shows, you can get caught once your program becomes popular enough or interesting enough for somebody knowledgeable to have a look at it. Even if you distribute only compiled binary.

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Regarding the example about uploading to modileread.com I am not sure what your point is.

One of the posters asked why bother with a license if anybody can pretty much do anything with the file anyway. I pointed out that there are situations where you need to know what the license is.

[Jellby]

What's wrong with a Creative Commons "Attribution-Share Alike" license?

[Kirtai]

The GPL is a licence for software not texts. For those, you need a proper documentation licence like the creative commons or similar.

[pholy]

Well, from one standpoint, it (CC-SA,AR) is just another license. It grants some rights that come out of copyright ownership. If you abolish copyright law, then you have no rights to grant. It becomes a free-for-all. There is nothing to license.

It's pretty explicit in the US Constitution; I'm not aware of what the original British or Canadian laws said. Encourage people to make their creativity publicly available for the public good instead of restricting to private distribution, by granting them the right to control the terms of distribution for a limited time, and allowing them to profit if they so wished.

It does bug me that I don't know much about the history of copyright in my own country. I know of only one book about Canadian copyright law that is aimed at non-lawyers.

One thing I am sure of is that copyright, in some ideal, restricted form, is all that stands between the growth of public knowledge and the privatisation of all creativity by the corporations.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So, any GPL gurus out there know about the feasibility of using the GPL or AGPL as a license for fiction?

The GPL, as such, was meant to be use for executable code, something that can be compiled. Try the GFL if you want something in the same spirit.

Firstly I consider copyright irrelevant in a digital age. It's impossible to restrict the flow of information, especially fiction (because of size and storage and the tide of progress) and I can't see any reason why I'd want to restrict that information either.

That's all fine, but practically any license (or even the declaration that your work is in the public domain) would accomplish that.

Thirdly, after using and looking at the Creative Commons, I'm not sure if it isn't anything but a pseudo-legalese way of saying - do what you're going to do anyway.

No, they're fine. You get to choose exactly what rights you want the user to have, under what provisions.

The restrictions on remixing or not are antithetical to how culture builds naturally upon earlier works.

Open to debate. By all means allow it, then.

Can I give away my work and allow others to do whatever they like with that work, including make money, as long as they acknowledge who originated the work and license the result in a similar manner?

Sounds like an Attribution/Share Alike CC license. Short story, yes you can.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Jellby

What's wrong with a Creative Commons "Attribution-Share Alike" license?

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. 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. This is permission given to something so obvious it shouldn't even need to be written down. If you don't want to share you work and have others share it, don't put it out as a digital file, because it's going to get shared whether you like it or not. 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? The very foundation of culture is based upon a bedrock of modification and usage of earlier works (whether directly used or as inspiration). If you say don't remix, aren't you just another roadblock to culture like the publishing companies? I don't know if I could live with that idea.

Now, let's come to the most controversial part of any CC license; the non-commercial or allowing of commercial aspect. While in theory this is the strongest part of the license (nobody wants to see Michael Bay ruin what they have created and make money from it) the defense of this aspect of the license is near to impossible. 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. Also my thoughts have been turning toward the 'what-if' someone made money on what I'd written? What if they made it better or worse? Do I really lose anything if someone takes what I've written and uses it to make money? Or might I gain exposure or bad exposure?

I see now that the GPL and derivatives are probably the wrong choice for articles of culture. They work in software because it is of a different nature. 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. Again, I'm not a lawyer and I started this thread because I had questions that I can't believe more writers aren't asking about their culture and the place they have within that culture.

As to where I stand, well, I can't possibly stand on the side of copyright. It's an unenforceable, frankly detestable way of treating others and of seeing your own work and place in the wider culture.

Public Domain looks like the best option at this moment in time, both for me and for the greater culture. Besides all that, it doesn't stop me from making money off my own work if I choose.

Thanks for the input everyone.

[Moejoe]

Oh and here's the quote by Eben Moglen that's at least partially responsible for my thought processes of late:

Originally Posted by Eben Moglen

The great moral question of the twenty-first century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, it was pretty much the threat of fines/loss of services, and imprisonment, that have always prevented people from violating copyright... the more likely the chance of suffering those fines/loss of services and/or imprisonment, the less likely to break copyright.

And not all of it is stick... some of it is carrot. Take the cable industry, which offers hordes of television content to its users... provided you do not run a cable across the yard and illegally share your signal with your neighbor. Cable sharing is incredibly easy, so why don't more people do it? Simply because they don't want to lose their access to those hordes of TV shows. So, clearly, there are ways of convincing people to follow copyright restrictions.

Erm, first off your example of carrot seems just like another example of the stick. My way or else... But here's the problem, this isn't publishers and authors taking their toys and going home if things don't go their way. This is law and courts and customs agents and even police at times. I pay for other people's copyrights even if i have no interest in the content becuse the existence of copyright has a cost. But there's nothing in it for me, for us... Progress is locked up till long after I'm dead. So I have to ask, are you really defending the current state of these laws? If so what can you say to justify the breaking of DRM being a criminal act? Retroactive copyright extension? Life+70 copyright terms? Takes downs of non commercial fanfiction and fan art? Revoking first sale rights? Up to $150000 statutory damages per act of infringement? Border searches of the contents of electronic devices with a copyright justification?

[omk3]

Border searches of the contents of electronic devices with a copyright justification?

Does this actually happen? I fly a lot, though only within Europe, and thankfully it has never happened to me, but then there are not real borders any more in Europe. What is the justification? Is it supposed to be a search for smuggled goods, like with expensive electronics? If it happens, it is outrageous, but then we have already kissed our privacy goodbye when we step into an airport...

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by omk3

Does this actually happen? I fly a lot, though only within Europe, and thankfully it has never happened to me, but then there are not real borders any more in Europe. What is the justification? Is it supposed to be a search for smuggled goods, like with expensive electronics? If it happens, it is outrageous, but then we have already kissed our privacy goodbye when we step into an airport...

It does happen at the US border but with the justification being "terrorism" (generic catch-all) or child pornography (another generic catch-all) two things it's impossible to argue against no matter how absurd the measures taken but from my reading of the leaked ATCA stuff there's a provision for doing this for copyright. I'll admit though that that isn't the purpose just the justification go to fishing in people's data. Still I'd very much for people to say this type of "IP enforcement" is a step too far.

Edit: I should point out that it doesn't always happen. My belongings have been searched but not my data personally. There's stories of them using some profiling such as picking out middle aged men coming back from countries known for sex tourism. That tends to not apply to me not being a man.

[omk3]

Sometimes they ask me to turn my laptop on, just to see that it does actually work and is not a cleverly disguised bomb. But usually they just scan it. There's no logic behind searching my files before I board a plane to prevent terrorism. Whatever I have stored in there, if it's not a bomb, it will not explode. Are they worried that sharp words can be used to threaten the pilot?

And child pornography is even flimsier as a reason. They do know that people can send their files using a modern thing called internet, and even store them there, instead of carrying them around physically, don't they?

Anyway, if they don't specifically target teenagers to thirty-somethings, their main goal is probably not to catch copyright infringement ..

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by omk3

Sometimes they ask me to turn my laptop on, just to see that it does actually work and is not a cleverly disguised bomb. But usually they just scan it. There's no logic behind searching my files before I board a plane to prevent terrorism. Whatever I have stored in there, if it's not a bomb, it will not explode. Are they worried that sharp words can be used to threaten the pilot?

And child pornography is even flimsier as a reason. They do know that people can send their files using a modern thing called internet, and even store them there, instead of carrying them around physically, don't they?

Anyway, if they don't specifically target teenagers to thirty-somethings, their main goal is probably not to catch copyright infringement ..

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.

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/

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by omk3

Does this actually happen? I fly a lot, though only within Europe, and thankfully it has never happened to me, but then there are not real borders any more in Europe. What is the justification? Is it supposed to be a search for smuggled goods, like with expensive electronics? If it happens, it is outrageous, but then we have already kissed our privacy goodbye when we step into an airport...

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.