Open thread for episode #845: Russell and Don, last show of the year »« Open thread for episode #844

Copyright change for The Atheist Experience

Hi everyone,

Last month I posted about some concerns over the duplication of episodes of The Atheist Experience. As I mentioned in that post, up until now we have been using the license Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0. This has effectively allowed various channels on YouTube to become unofficial hosts of new shows, in their entirety, every week.

After extensive discussions among the board of directors at the Atheist Community of Austin, we will be changing the copyright terms going forward. Past shows remain under the Creative Commons license and may be reproduced in full, as long as the license terms are posted, and there is a prominent link to the show’s website. However, new episodes of The Atheist Experience, beginning with the episode on 12/15/2013, are posted as “All Rights Reserved” and may not be reproduced in full without permission.

Having said that, we’ve always appreciated fans posting their favorite clips on YouTube, and we’d like to give as broad permission as possible for that kind of activity to continue. So to make this clear:

The Atheist Experience hereby grants permission to copy clips, up to ten minutes in length, for non-commercial purposes only. Up to two clips per episode may be copied on any one channel.

If you’d like to copy a longer clip, or more clips from one episode, all you have to do is write to [email protected] and ask for permission. We’ll probably say yes. It’s that simple!

Thanks.

Comments

  1. Monocle Smile says

    This is probably the most fair option.

    Meaning the same damn trolls with come out and you’ll probably get bitched at by the “free culture” monkeys.

  2. AhmNee says

    After that ridiculous kerfuffle, it makes sense that the ACA would lock things down again and I can’t help but feel it was the “free culture” nutters that forced their hand. I certainly wouldn’t want to go through that again, were I them.

  3. Narf says

    But information wants to be FREE!!!!!1111ONE

    Information isn’t sentient, you nutters. It has no desires nor anything to desire something with. :D

  4. scourge99 says

    Why do people have to write in? Why snail mail as opposed to email or other forms of communication which have a “paper trail”?

  5. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @AhmNee:

    I can’t help but feel it was the “free culture” nutters that forced their hand.

    “Free culture” nutters? I love GPL for code. It’s nice to see CC sometimes – when creators think it’s appropriate.
    How can someone nutterize–

    *Reads comments below the “All about YouTube channels” post.*
    *sigh*
     
     
    Well this new arrangement sounds like a good fit for the ACA anyhow.

  6. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Will the “short clips are allowed” disclaimer appear in the videos’ credits and/or the archive’s “Using our Content” section?

  7. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    There’s another licensey bit on the AE site’s “Fan appreciation, including video clips” page.

    Btw, the table on that page is huge.

  8. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @AhmNee
    The license the ACA chose says free to share in full. I am going to defend people’s rights under that license, because such licenses are vitally important in the free software realm. It’s not my fault that the ACA can’t read and apparently have zero legal expertise.

    @Narf
    You are completely miss-framing this argument. There are plenty of good arguments to be had about the immorality of software and information copyright and patents, especially with the obscenely long terms and restrictive rules that we have now in the western world. The usual position of GNU and free software licenses is a respectable position. You know that thing, Linux, which runs on a shitton of computers and devices? GNU. Not my fault that a bunch of youtube nutters came out the woodwork at the same time. Please don’t conflate the two.

  9. Narf says

    Those aren’t the ones I’m mocking, man. I was aiming more at the nutters I know who think there should be no such thing as copyrights. We had one of those on this blog a few months ago, trying to explain to us why artists should not be allowed to make money by selling their artwork. Apparently there should be no such thing as intellectual property, according to him.

  10. Monocle Smile says

    Yes, I apologize if you missed my meaning. When I refer to “free culture” monkeys, I’m not referring to people who have objections to the current state of software copyright. I’m referring to people who have objections to the very idea of copyright and think software, information, and all forms of art should all be public property and no profit should ever be made from any of it.

    In other terms, what Narf said. I’m fine with open-source stuff, if it’s the author’s choice to make it open-source. I was a musician part-time in college, and we just recently released all of our music for free because at this point, we all have other careers and we care more about the spread of our music than profit. But that’s our choice, not because we’re not legally allowed to profit from our art.

  11. Monocle Smile says

    It’s a very short–sighted, idealistic perspective from a person who clearly doesn’t rely on copyright to put food on the table. Millions of people do, and it’s rather rich-white-hipster of that author to completely ignore this in that post.

  12. bugmaster says

    Some context might be useful here:

    http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html

    (search for “Copyright & distribution” on that page)

    http://blog.ninapaley.com/2011/03/29/my-copyright-story-in-a-nutshell/#more-1884

    My personal opinion (which differs from hers), is that a person should respect other people’s copyrights, to a certain extent, since it does not make any sense to respect the copyright of people who have been dead for a century. On the other hand, I do agree that the harder you make it for people to copy your own content, the less worthwhile your content becomes (as, f.ex., studies on music distribution have demonstrated).

    However, I also see the point in what AXP is doing. Their objective is not to produce art or to spark debate, but to advocate a specific set of political views. In this case, keeping a very tight control over the message is essential, so it makes perfect sense to lock down videos, turn off comments, etc. I think Nina Paley is being a little short-sighted in that regard.

  13. Monocle Smile says

    That depends on what you mean by “worthwhile.”

    Paley’s right that most artists don’t profit from copyright, but that’s a red herring that avoids the contention. If your work can be obtained and re-sold for the profit of another person without royalties, that makes your work valueless after a short period of time and now the artist has lost their source of income. This also allows for legal “reverse engineering” of music and technology. Copyright as we know it today has its issues, but Paley’s ire is misdirected.

    Also, I would argue that AXP’s purpose IS to spark debate and conduct outreach to the community. Saying it’s to “advocate a specific set of political beliefs” short-changes the show.

  14. bugmaster says

    I can’t speak for Paley, but I think I personally wouldn’t have a problem with copyright, if it was limited to some reasonable amount of time. Originally, this was in fact the case, but then Disney came along, and copyright terms basically became equal to “T – MickeyMouse.GetCreationDate()” years. Given that this is the situation as it exists, and given that it is unlikely to ever change, copyright IMO does more harm than good.

    Also, I would argue that AXP’s purpose IS to spark debate and conduct outreach to the community.

    What do you mean by “community” ? Theists aren’t exactly a part of the atheist community, but who else are you going to debate with ?

  15. Monocle Smile says

    I’m not sure how you can say copyright does more harm than good. The harm it does is hinder access to copyrighted works, which is merely a pain in the ass. The good it does is provide artists with incentive to create works and counts for double because if art isn’t a source of income, the quality drops and there’s an incentive NOT to produce art because those hours are now directed towards gathering income.

    The hosts of AXP have stated multiple times that the ACA exists partly to reach out to other atheists to let us know we’re not alone. I’m one who truly appreciates this, as I’m pretty much in isolation where I live within up to an hour’s drive in all directions. That’s the community I’m talking about.

  16. bugmaster says

    @MonocleSmile:

    As far as I can tell, you are essentially arguing for infinite copyright terms (which is not too different from what we have now). However, I believe that copyright does real, tangible harm; and that you overstate its benefits.

    Firstly, there are many copyrighted works that fade into obscurity, or are lost outright, pretty much every day — including out of print books, old movies, and even old music such as the Annete Harshaw songs that Paley used. These works are not making their creators any money, because said creators are long dead, as well as because the works are either not available for purchase or simply too obscure. And yet, they are copyrighted, which means that no one can use them. We are losing a large part of our cultural heritage this way.

    Secondly, copyright produces a very real and significant chilling effect. For example, should you really publish that video of your birthday party , if copyrighted music can be heard playing from a boombox in the background (*) ? Better safe than sorry, right ? What if you took a photo of your friend, with some copyrighted landmark as the backdrop; should you publish it (*) ? Who knows, you don’t need the legal hassle… What if you meticulously created all-new 3D art (and the rendering engine to display it) for your favorite SNES game; is that safe (*)? And what about your amateur erotic fanfic featuring Mickey Mouse and Lavinia Whateley ? I’m pretty sure that’s out of the question.

    I think it is rather short-sighted to measure the effects of copyright solely by the amount of money that could potentially be paid to the original copyright owners, since this ignores any works that could not be created due to copyright lockdowns. If Jidaigeki was copyrighted in perpetuity, we wouldn’t have Star Wars.

    Furthermore, you say:

    The good it does is provide artists with incentive to create works and counts for double because if art isn’t a source of income, the quality drops and there’s an incentive NOT to produce art because those hours are now directed towards gathering income.

    If this were true, then the Open Source movement and Creative Commons wouldn’t exist at all, let alone become as successful as they currently are. It would seem that at least some people choose to create even in total absence of any remuneration.

    Allow me to restate my earlier point, though: I am not opposed to the very idea copyright on principle (unlike Paley). However, given copyright’s present state, IMO it does far more harm than good.

    The hosts of AXP have stated multiple times that the ACA exists partly to reach out to other atheists to let us know we’re not alone.

    In this case, AXP is kind of like a support group, where people can come to relax and be themselves without their opinions getting challenged at every turn. Thus, debate is actually the opposite of what you want, and it is doubly important to lock down your core message, so I stand by my previous comment.

    (*) In all of these cases, the answer is a definitive “no”.

  17. houndentenor says

    I agree with you about the ridiculous lengths of the copyrights, which were pushed by the film industry that doesn’t want to lose out on the easy money for royalties on projects where they never had to pay anyone involved a penny past their initial contract.

    That said, creative people are only going to produce content if they can make at least some money doing so. If we allow the free-for-all that some people seem to want, the content is going to dry up. In fact a lot of it already has. You get paid for your work. It’s only fair that I get paid for mine.

  18. houndentenor says

    BTW, the essay that you should all be reading is called “Who Listens if They Care”. (The title is a play on Milton Babbitt’s “Who Cares if They Listen”, and concerns quotation and sampling in contemporary (both art and popular) music. You made need something like jstor access in order to read it because it is rather ironically copyrighted. I found a copy here (probably put up for a reading assignment for a class somewhere).

    http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~century/AC/Ziporyn%20Who%20Listens%20if%20You%20Care.pdf

  19. Monocle Smile says

    bugmaster, if you haven’t noticed, open source stuff is almost always far, far shitter (and much harder to use) than proprietary stuff. I say this as a Linux fan (which has taken decades to get beyond something code monkeys can use). It also takes much longer to get into usable form. My comments therefore stand. Furthermore, you seem to be intentionally conflating the idea of copyright with the modern copyright law when I thought I was very clear in drawing lines between the two. I don’t get this kind of dishonesty.

    Thus, debate is actually the opposite of what you want

    This is you either being totally stupid or totally dishonest. Are you really suggesting that a production cannot have multiple purposes? That it must either exist to spark debate OR reach out to the atheist community and the two could never, ever be the intention of the same work? Because that’s what you seem to be implying, and it’s utterly ridiculous.

  20. bugmaster says

    bugmaster, if you haven’t noticed, open source stuff is almost always far, far shitter (and much harder to use) than proprietary stuff.

    I have not noticed. In my experience, open source stuff is, indeed, shittier as far as desktop UI is concerned; however, in terms of server-side code, it is basically without peer. Try running a Windows/IIS based stack vs. Linux/Apache, you’ll see what I mean. In addition, there are many cases where open source is the only stuff that is available at all, as is the case with many scientific and mathematical analysis libraries such as NumPy. In other cases, commercial companies benefit from open source development directly; for example, Blizzard and other gaming companies are routinely using the BitTorrent protocol to distribute their patches. Actually, now that I think about it, Blender is a lot easier to use than most other 3D modeling applications of its kind, so even the UI story is not 100% true.

    In addition, you have ignored my main point. Open source, shitty or not, does exist. This means that there are plenty of people who are perfectly willing to work knowing that anyone can download their work for free at any time. This contradicts one of the major benefits that you assigned to copyright.

    Furthermore, you seem to be intentionally conflating the idea of copyright with the modern copyright law when I thought I was very clear in drawing lines between the two.

    I don’t see your point. Do you believe that modern copyright law, as it actually exists, does more harm than good ? If you do, then we are in agreement, as far as I can tell.

    That it must either exist to spark debate OR reach out to the atheist community and the two could never, ever be the intention of the same work?

    You described the mission of AXP as more than merely “reaching out”. And in this case, yes, I do believe that you cannot have it both ways.

    If you want to allow debate, you have to make it easy for people to, well, engage in debate. This means that you need to allow people to post comments (while enforcing some standards of behavior); you need to make it easy for people to share your videos; make sure newcomers — even those who disagree with you — feel welcome, etc.

    On the other hand, if you want to create a safe haven for existing community members, you need to do exactly the opposite. You want to make sure that negative comments of any kind cannot ruin anyone’s day. You want to make absolutely certain that your videos won’t leak out to any trolls. You want to make any newcomers who are not members of the community feel decidedly unwelcome, etc.

    Both of these goals are valuable, but unfortunately, you can either have one or the other… Or you can try to implement some sort of compromise that makes everyone unhappy, so that they all end up going somewhere else.

    But perhaps I misunderstood your point ? What exactly did you have in mind when you said “reaching out” ?

  21. Monocle Smile says

    I never, ever said that art or software wouldn’t exist without copyright. Do you live in a binary world that is always black-and-white on this stuff?

    This seems to creep into your other “point.” I do in fact believe you can have it both ways. That’s because we’re humans and not fucking robots. There’s a sliding scale here and it’s not binary…one rough comment from a theist isn’t enough to drive away atheists who are looking for a community, as is fucking obvious by these very threads here. You don’t have to layer everything in bubble wrap to proliferate a community or do outreach to isolated potential members, and this is insanely obvious to anyone who’s a real human being. We’re dealing with young adults and older, not infants or disabled kittens. In fact, I would argue that sparking debate INVITES potential members in the community because it shows that the present members are passionate and unafraid of opposition.

  22. claschx says

    If you have people like monocle_smile defending your actions, i rather not watch TAE anymore. I fully understand that ACA is in its full right to chose how their content is distributed, but we the viewers don’t have to agree with that.

    wish you the best of luck, you had one of the best channels/shows on youtube

  23. says

    Your complaint is so vague that I can’t even tell what exactly you’ve got a problem with. Do you think that it’s unreasonable for ACA to use its copyright in any way?

    You realize that it’s still possible for people to use videos of the show for commenting purposes, as well as using individual clips that they find funny or interesting, right? The only thing that’s actually being prevented is the wholesale uploading of entire shows. Since ACA itself is making the shows available in full, via multiple channels, I fail to see what the problem is.

    The only argument I’ve heard so far is “We want to be able to discuss the videos on youtube.” I don’t really get that, considering how awful a forum youtube is, but if you insist, it’s actually still possible.
    You can make a channel that hosts a short clip from each show, along with a link to the official channel with the full show. At worst, this means you have to click one more time than usual. That’s hardly a big problem.

    But of course, if you prefer not to watch, you have that right.

  24. Russell Glasser says

    I don’t really know how I’m expected to react to a “goodbye forever” post like that. I mean, obviously many people disagree with the way we chose to distribute the shows, and obviously I’ve read and considered their input, although they don’t carry as much weight as the lengthy discussions the board of directors had.

    But I don’t see why any of us should be expected to fly into a panic and say “Oh no, people are refusing to watch our show and our ratings are going down!” If we cared more about maximizing the audience than about saying things we honestly believe in a format that works for us, we could be doing a church show instead. I always figured that people who want to watch the show, will watch the show, and those who don’t, won’t.

  25. bugmaster says

    I never, ever said that art or software wouldn’t exist without copyright.

    What was your point, then ? You said:

    The good [copyright] does is provide artists with incentive to create works and counts for double because if art isn’t a source of income, the quality drops and there’s an incentive NOT to produce art …

    You already admitted that most artists don’t actually profit from copyright — though, obviously, some do. Most creators of software don’t profit from copyright, either, though their employers sometimes do. I agree that copyright does provide some “incentive to create works”, since a chance to strike it big is better than nothing, but it would appear that there are many people who would create art or software no matter what. Some of them even deliberately give up any potential profits by releasing their works as Open Source or under a Creative Commons license. Furthermore, I disagree with you that the quality of such works is uniformly worse than the quality of copyrighted works, as per my previous comments. So… where is the advantage ? Are you merely saying that copyright allows some additional works to be created which otherwise wouldn’t be ? If so, how many, and are they really worth the tradeoffs ?

    In fact, I would argue that sparking debate INVITES potential members in the community because it shows that the present members are passionate and unafraid of opposition

    Ok, that is a good point. If you are building a safe space for atheists, it does help to have some debates, as long as there aren’t too many of them, and you ensure that atheists always win. It does help a great deal to demonstrate that the opposition is easily beatable (which, on a purely intellectual level, it is).

    That said, consider this: imagine that you’re an atheist looking for a community of like-minded people to join. You visit the forums of community A, and see that most of the posters are talking shop, commiserating, offering words of encouragement, and occasionally trouncing a handful of Creationists. The forums of community B, however, consist mostly of heated debates between atheists and theists (as well as atheists and other atheists), on topics ranging from “does god exist” to “is copyright perfect” to “how old is the Earth”, to “should abortion be legal”, etc. etc.

    Which community would you join ? A or B ?

  26. says

    There are people, when they argue, who will say the silliest things that they would never say if less emotional. It’s just “striking out”. I find it interesting how internet, or perhaps just written, communication often begins at this emotionally charged level. There’s nothing sensible you could respond with when the message is just “ME ANGRY!” When I disagree to that extent, I just leave. It seems the much more sensible thing to do. I think it’s harder to do when you have a low self esteem or feel undervalued. Being heard is more important than what you are saying.

  27. Narf says

    I never, ever said that art or software wouldn’t exist without copyright.

    What was your point, then ?

    He made his point, rather explicitly. You tend to get a better variety and higher quality product with copyright and the motive of profit.

    To pull out your earlier example, Linux/Unix, your example actually demonstrates how you’re wrong. Linux fills a niche market. It’s an example of people creating something for their own usage, ignoring the needs of the rest of the market.

    How many Linux clients do you see, despite the fact that it functions perfectly well on client machines? My users can barely handle Windows. If you tried to force them onto Linux, they would give up and refuse to use the computers. Just last week, I had to show two of my users how to use the Copy/Paste functions, and I think one of them has since forgotten.

    Also, could Linux have been developed in an industry that wasn’t already created as a profit-driven structure? You get this sort of thing from many rugged do-it-yourselfers. They’re very good at ignoring the structure that’s propping them up in their rugged individualism.

    You already admitted that most artists don’t actually profit from copyright — though, obviously, some do. Most creators of software don’t profit from copyright, either, though their employers sometimes do. I agree that copyright does provide some “incentive to create works”, since a chance to strike it big is better than nothing, but it would appear that there are many people who would create art or software no matter what.

    You’re being willfully oblivious. Most artists don’t actually profit from their work, no. But how many of them would work as hard at it, if there was no potential for profit? You’re missing the distinction between potential for profit and actual profit. And that’s a fucking huge distinction. The potential for profit is enough to drive many artists on, even when their actual gains are nonexistent.

    You’re also wrong that creators of software don’t often profit from the copyright of their works, too. They have a freaking job, don’t they? Other programmers will never create anything copyright-able, and they still make money, because they have the potential to make something big. The employers are pooling the risk/benefit equations of all of their employees. A lone programmer could write an amazing piece of code and profit hugely. He could also go bankrupt and starve.

    Are there abuses in the system? Of course. There are analogs to Disney in the programming world. You should try to fix the system before you tear the whole thing down, though.

    Some of them even deliberately give up any potential profits by releasing their works as Open Source or under a Creative Commons license.

    And you don’t see any possible incentive for them to do this, do you? You don’t see how many people who do this are using it as a publicity tool to make profits off of their following works?

    Furthermore, I disagree with you that the quality of such works is uniformly worse than the quality of copyrighted works, as per my previous comments. So… where is the advantage ?

    You’re really a good source of loaded verbiage, aren’t you? He never said nor implied that every work created for profit is better than every work created under creative commons. That would be stupid. We’re speaking of averages. Where the hell did you get the statement of uniform superiority?

    Which community would you join ? A or B ?

    I would join the community that talks about more than how stupid religion is.

  28. Monocle Smile says

    Narf responded well concerning the copyright stuff. Thanks, bro.

    Which community would you rather join? A or B?

    I actually have a backbone, so I’d join the one that discusses real issues and examines how religion affects them regardless of whether or not there were heated debates. I realize that you present this as a false dichotomy with the intent of proving an invalid point, but you’re just wrong. Not everyone is going to choose community A, and I’d argue that there would be a pretty even split, all else being equal.

  29. Ian MathWiz says

    So, as a fan with a channel who’s uploaded multiple clips (though never full episodes), are clips longer than ten minutes that were uploaded before the 16th still valid?

  30. Russell Glasser says

    Yeah, they’re still under the old copyright. And even if they hadn’t been, like I said, I think you could get permission from us easily.

  31. bugmaster says

    You tend to get a better variety and higher quality product with copyright and the motive of profit.

    I am not certain about “higher quality”, but I already granted you “better variety”, in my comments above. So, all that remains to argue about is this: does copyright, not as an abstract ideal, but as a real system that exists today, do more harm than good ? I argue that the chilling effects and the stifling of innovation are, sadly, more than enough to overwhelm any benefits such as “better variety”. Again, I am not talking about some sort of a Platonic Ideal of copyright, but about the very real laws, with nearly infinite terms, as they exist in our world, today.

    If you disagree, then please quantify your answer. Do you believe that anything and everything should be copyrightable ? Do you believe that copyright terms should be infinite ? If not, then what should be copyrightable, for how long, and how did you arrive at these values ?

    Linux fills a niche market.

    If you want to call servers, embedded devices, and (to some extent) Android phones a “niche market”, then I suppose you’re right. That’s a pretty big niche, though.

    Also, could Linux have been developed in an industry that wasn’t already created as a profit-driven structure?

    I don’t understand what this means. As far as I know, the motivation for creating Linux/FreeBSD/etc. was not related to profit; though nowadays several organizations (such as Google, for example) are profiting from it, ironically enough.

    You don’t see how many people who do this are using it as a publicity tool to make profits off of their following works?

    Are you saying that everyone who creates anything is ultimately motivated only by profit ? I think this is a rather simplistic view of things. If that is not what you mean, then what is your point ?

    I actually have a backbone, so I’d join the one that discusses real issues and examines how religion affects them regardless of whether or not there were heated debates.

    Fair enough, but does this mean that people who lack “a backbone” are not welcome in your community ? I have no problem with that, but you are now sabotaging your own stated goal of “outreach”, unless by “outreach” you meant “reaching out for people only to slap them away”.

  32. Maurício Duque says

    You guys have any preferencial title for the emails asking for permissions?

    I have a channel in youtube that post clips from the show with subtitles in portuguese, Left4Coragem, look it up, and while i want to keep doing those, i am not keen on the idea of waiting a week or more just to get one email saying:

    “Sure go ahead”.

    So which title i should use to get this permission faster?

  33. Monocle Smile says

    You’ve misrepresented my position in the exact same manner despite clarification from TWO users. Acting as if this is somehow my fault is getting dangerously close to psychological projection.

  34. Russell Glasser says

    Can I see your channel? How much of the show are you posting? Is it less than half?

    If it’s not out of hand, I’m willing to just give you a blanket “Go ahead and do it, if it starts getting excessive I’ll ask you to tone it down.” Trying to chase down violations is really kind of a last resort, critical diplomacy failure kind of thing to me.

  35. JT Rager says

    If you don’t allow me to upload non-prophets episodes in their entirety onto Soundcloud I will forever cease listening to NPR! Take that, Russel!

  36. Maurício Duque says

    Here’s the link for my channel:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Left4Coragem

    I always make one call clips or two calls very short in a row, and the comments of the hosts after the call. So the run time of the videos can range from 2 minutes (my shortest video) to 22 minutes (my longest right now) or more, depending only on the caller and the hosts.

    But to be bluntly honest, it’s not every episode that have good callers or good topics, which happens with a show with so many episodes, so you will never see my channel making subtitles for an entire episode, or posting it for that matter.

  37. AhmNee says

    When I speak of the nutters, I’m not really talking about the culture in general. I’m talking about the people who jumped on the site here and started irrationally flipping the hell out. People like you, EL. Claiming there were grounds for defamation. Claiming that being “largely in compliance” was a defense as if “largely in compliance” were an actual thing. Railing on about the ACA’s understanding of copyright law while showing poor understanding of it yourself.

    So, just so we’re clear. I respect the free culture community. It’s your statements and a good portion of those attempting to defend Mr. Mills that buried any well reasoned argument in a sea of false victimization and buffoonery.

  38. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @AhmNee
    You’re going to nitpick over my accidental use of the word ‘largely”? Even after I clarified? My intent was more than clear. I’ll state it one more time to get it through your thick-ass skull.

    The ACA were pursuing action not because he was in breach of license. The ACA would pursue action against anyone even if they were in full compliance with the license. This puts them clearly in the moral and legal wrong.

    Second, I very clearly said that if he was in compliance (I accidentally used the word “largely” – my apologies), then the ACA did defame him. Publicly accusing someone of a crime is statutory defamation. (“Statutory” means you don’t have to show damages. The statute assumes that damages exist for this case.) The key part was “if he was in compliance”. If he was, then the ACA acted with regardless disregard for the truth or gross negligence, and they could be sued for defamation for using the guy’s full name and accusing him of willful copyright infringement.

    I didn’t just “jump on the site here”. I’ve been here for at least a year, maybe years. You are simply wrong. The ACA is lucky that they did not get a small claims suit. (If I was in full compliance), I sure as hell would have asked for a full public apology, or sued otherwise. Chances are good that I would have won too.

    But go ahead, ignore the “if I was in full compliance” part, just like you’ve done several times now, dishonest asshat.

  39. Narf says

    If you disagree, then please quantify your answer.

    Allow me to translate:
    “I’m going to throw out wild-ass assertions with no evidence and no quantification. I’m going to demand evidence and quantification in your rebuttals to my wild-ass assertions.”

    Sorry, no. I don’t play that game.

    If you want to call servers, embedded devices, and (to some extent) Android phones a “niche market”, then I suppose you’re right. That’s a pretty big niche, though.

    Calling Android phones a version of Linux is a huge stretch. It’s only loosely based upon the Linux kernel. Again, you’ve got a huge problem with your argument. You have a massively profitable corporate entity throwing their weight behind a platform that allows them to make massive profits off of hardware and peripheral components of the technically free OS. If you can’t see the flaw in pushing that argument, I can’t help you.

    Servers are a very small piece of the PC market, as a percentage, yes. They’re used by the most technologically competent portion of the population which are capable of creating their own versions of the tools they use.

    Also, could Linux have been developed in an industry that wasn’t already created as a profit-driven structure?

    I don’t understand what this means.

    The computer industry was created long before Linux came on the market. If you had tried to create a computer industry on the back of an open-source OS like Linux, particularly the earlier versions of Unix, it would have died in its infancy.

    Are you saying that everyone who creates anything is ultimately motivated only by profit ? I think this is a rather simplistic view of things. If that is not what you mean, then what is your point ?

    Do you really have such a simplistic, black-and-white view of reality? What do you not understand about there being multiple components to every human behavior? The profit motivation, whether monetary or more intangible, is a very powerful component of creative drive. Recognition of one’s creative efforts, which is also supported by copyright, is another powerful drive behind creative efforts.

    Fair enough, but does this mean that people who lack “a backbone” are not welcome in your community ?

    They’re perfectly welcome. They’re just going to have to grow a backbone, at some point.

  40. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Narf

    The computer industry was created long before Linux came on the market. If you had tried to create a computer industry on the back of an open-source OS like Linux, particularly the earlier versions of Unix, it would have died in its infancy.

    How do you explain the success of UNIX then? Because … uhh… that’s exactly what happened AFAIK.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Unix

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-strange-birth-and-long-life-of-unix/

    The rogue project began in earnest when Thompson, Ritchie, and a third Bell Labs colleague, Rudd Canaday, began to [...]

    The story goes like this: For years Unix remained nothing more than a Bell Labs research project, but by 1973 its authors felt the system was mature enough for them to present a paper on its design and implementation at a symposium of the Association for Computing Machinery. That paper was published in 1974 in the Communications of the ACM. Its appearance brought a flurry of requests for copies of the software.

    This put AT&T in a bind. In 1956, AT&T had agreed to a U.S government consent decree that prevented the company from selling products not directly related to telephones and telecommunications, in return for its legal monopoly status in running the country’s long-distance phone service. So Unix could not be sold as a product. Instead, AT&T released the Unix source code under license to anyone who asked, charging only a nominal fee. The critical wrinkle here was that the consent decree prevented AT&T from supporting Unix. Indeed, for many years Bell Labs researchers proudly displayed their Unix policy at conferences with a slide that read, “No advertising, no support, no bug fixes, payment in advance.”

    With no other channels of support available to them, early Unix adopters banded together for mutual assistance, forming a loose network of user groups all over the world. They had the source code, which helped. And they didn’t view Unix as a standard software product, because nobody seemed to be looking after it. So these early Unix users themselves set about fixing bugs, writing new tools, and generally improving the system as they saw fit.

    The Usenix user group acted as a clearinghouse for the exchange of Unix software in the United States. People could send in magnetic tapes with new software or fixes to the system and get back tapes with the software and fixes that Usenix had received from others. In Australia, the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney produced a more robust version of Unix, the Australian Unix Share Accounting Method, which could cope with larger numbers of concurrent users and offered better performance.

    Basically, they hoodwinked their bosses to let them continue their work on an operating system by telling their bosses something different. The bosses did not want work on an operating system. However, due to the success of the operating system, they released it in a paper. The fun part is that AT&T was bound by their monopoly agreement with the government, and so an open source development process began, perhaps the first one in human history. I’d say open source software is pretty successful. I’d also say that you have no clue what you are talking about.

  41. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Narf

    Calling Android phones a version of Linux is a huge stretch. It’s only loosely based upon the Linux kernel.

    That’s a rather curious way to describe a Linux fork which very regularly integrates updates from the main Linux branch.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29
    http://elinux.org/Android_Kernel_Versions

    What? Do you think that Debian or Mint is “Linux”? Linux is the name of the kernel, and there are a great many distributions which bundle that kernel and a bunch of other software packages (usually shared between distributions). Those distributions are what are used by most folk using Linux. The distributions themselves are commonly called “Linux”. To the extent that Debian is Linux, that Fedora is Linux, etc., Android is also Linux.

    I am again forced to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.

  42. Narf says

    Eh, whatever. We’ve already wandered so far afield of the main point. So, we’ve taken about … 35 years to get to a widely-used version of the product, in the form of the Android OS? That isn’t a fantastic demonstration of the process.

    Do we have any other good examples? Because that’s the only one I ever hear about. How do we get from that to the complete eradication of all copyright law, as this guy is proposing?

  43. OakWind says

    I’ll post 2-10 minute clips, someone else can upload 2-10 minute clips, exc.. Then we can create a playlist. Another draconian move averted. These guys look like they are new to the internet, and have never heard of the Streisand effect.

  44. AhmNee says

    You seem to have forgotten that the ACA only responded to the situation after Mr. Mills made it public. It was a private message sent to Mr. Mills who then posted said message to rile up his follower-base (I hate to use the word fan because he wasn’t presenting anything of his own).

    You’re actually trying to defend yourself by, in hindsight, claiming the defamation argument was purely hypothetical and depended on you or Steve being fully in compliance, which was not the case for Mr. Mills. So, sure. Full points for giving ground as myself and others continued to poke holes in your argument that Mr. Mills could sue them for defamation and probably win.

    Your original claim that started the argument was:

    “Furthermore, I am concerned that the recent actions of the ACA might constitute harassment, breach of contract, and a few other things, which the ACA could be liable for in civil court. If Steve Mills operated in good faith and generally obeyed the licensing requirements of the contract – which it appears that he did – then I think that he has a good case to file suit against the ACA.”

    So to come back now and say that it was all hypothetical? Right. I’m the one being dishonest. You keep telling yourself that.

  45. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @Narf
    I’m not arguing the other guy’s stupid point. I’m just correcting you on what appears to be shit you pulled from out of your ass because any tolerable exploration would have revealed that you were wrong. It took me 5 minutes with wikipedia and google to find those sources.

  46. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @AhmNee
    That has been my argument from the beginning. Why are you acting like it wasn’t? That was my argument from the beginning, basically unchanged. Do I really need to go to the other thread and pick out the quotes where I say this, from the start, multiple times?

    Yes, it is a hypothetical – not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Furthermore, from my perspective, I have no good reason to believe that he was in compliance, and I have no good reason to believe he was in noncompliance. The ACA’s word on this topic means diddly because they apparently have zero knowledge of the relevant law. I have asked for evidence one way or the other numerous times, such as a screenshot of one of the original video pages. I have not gotten that evidence yet. Thus I have remained undecided. Thus it’s not just a hypothetical detached from reality – not that there’s anything wrong with that – but from my perspective and from the evidence available to me this might be how reality is.

    Also, how is it dishonest to talk about a hypothetical detached from reality when you very clearly set it up as such? How is that dishonest? Seriously? Dishonesty in a strict sense is knowingly saying a false statement. In a broader sense, it is knowingly saying something for which you have no good reason to believe it’s true. In a broader sense, it is saying something with the intent of making others come to a false conclusion, or a conclusion which you have no good reason to believe is true. Broader still, it is withholding information in certain contexts where the other party expects that if you knew something, you would say it. So, under any of those prongs, how is anything I did dishonest?

    In the other thread, you continually ignored the ever-present “if he was in compliance”, thereby knowingly arguing against a strawman, e.g. being dishonest. Here, you insinuate that my actual position included “mostly in compliance”, despite the fact that I immediately corrected myself in the other thread, I admitting I was wrong, and said that particular phrase was an accident. I’m pretty sure you acknowledged this. This again means you are knowingly arguing against a strawman, e.g. being dishonest. Now you’re saying I’m being dishonest without any good cause, which doesn’t make you dishonest per se. I think you’re so far up your own ass that you are not thinking clearly enough for me to attribute intent, and without that I cannot attribute dishonesty. I can only say you’re a dipshit.

    You seem to have a problem admitting that you are wrong. Rather than do that, you’re just going to argue this into the ground. Another problem is that you are associating me with the youtube idiot crowd. I suspect this for several reasons, including the false claim above that I came here just to cause trouble. However, it’s easily verifiable that I’ve been on frethoughtblogs, and this blog in particular, for quite a while, meaning that you have no clue what you are talking about, and that you are willing to invent facts to bolster your case. That’s also dishonesty.

  47. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Protip: With all rights reserved and the above allowance in the opening blog post, your tactics are not going to work. In any US court, the court will rule that your tactics are a purposeful subversion of copyright law, and you are going to lose. It’s almost an open and shut case.

    Furthermore, it’s draconian to say that the only whole episodes should be through official channels so they can recoup some costs – where the episodes are freely available? What planet do you live on? Is all copyright draconian, or just whatever happens to annoy you for no explicable reason?

  48. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    It’s the same “free speech!” crowd against all censorship. It’s funny. There are some parallels between that crowd and the blasphemy censorship crowd. Both think that free speech is the right to say anything you want with zero repercussions. This includes no one else calling you out as wrong, an idiot, evil, etc. They seemed to have missed the free speech 101 memo (see JS Mill’s “On Liberty”, among others). One of the major arguments for free speech is that by allowing all conversation, we throw out all possibly correct ideas, and all of their criticisms. By doing so, we are better able to discern what is true and what is false. Bot h the “free speech” crowd and the blasphemy censorship crowd are completely oblivious that free speech matters under this argument only when you’re going to be heavily criticized for anything you say. Instead, they treat it as an entitlement to never be challenged on their bullshit beliefs.

  49. AhmNee says

    One has to admire your limberness to perform these kind of mental gymnastics. If it were true that you were arguing a hypothetical that depended on full compliance and not a true concern that such a suit would have merit, when it was pointed out that Mr. Mills admitted that he was out of compliance, that should have been the end of the discussion. But it wasn’t. It was:

    “Mmm. Thanks. So fault lies with both sides. Meh. My complaints towards the ACA largely stand.”

    And:

    “Regardless of whether Steve Mills was in the wrong, the ACA conducted themselves in a way that is inviting a lawsuit.”

    So I call bullshit on your “detachment from reality”. You’re trying to revise your own history now that you’ve been shown to be mistaken. You waffled back and forth between your strawman and stance that the ACA’s actions were legally actionable.

    “I have not gotten that evidence yet. Thus I have remained undecided.” – So Steve’s admission wasn’t enough evidence for you?

    EnlightenmentLiberal
    November 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm (UTC -6)
    @AhmNee
    What requirements did he not follow? Do you have screenshots or similar of uploads which lacked the missing attribution or links or whatever?

    Monocle Smile
    November 23, 2013 at 11:50 pm (UTC -6)
    EL:
    Steve Mills has commented on this blog post now. He literally admitted he didn’t link to the license in his video descriptions or anything of the sort. He posted what he DID put in the descriptions.

    EnlightenmentLiberal
    November 24, 2013 at 12:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
    Mmm. Thanks. So fault lies with both sides. Meh. My complaints towards the ACA largely stand.

    *sigh* I’m sorry, EL. In truth, I don’t think you’re a bad guy, I just think you managed to let your argument run away from you and you’re not really sure what it was anymore. So I’ll apologize for whatever harsh language I’ve used here that may have upset you and withdraw from the conversation. It’s going nowhere.

  50. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So Steve’s admission wasn’t enough evidence for you?

    I forgot. You have me there. My mistake.

    Now, remind me how what I said in the other thread was dishonest? Talking about hypotheticals clearly is now dishonesty? I ask again, what kind of planet do you live on?

    Again, what does anything of what you say have to do with my central point, which I say time and time again. The ACA was not taking action because he was out of compliance. The ACA was taking action in spite of him being in noncompliance. The ACA would have taken the same action had be been in compliance. The reasons stated by the ACA for taking action had nothing to do with being in compliance.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/11/18/all-about-youtube-channels/

    It gives the false impression that a particular channel is officially associated with The Atheist Experience. Even when the channels explicitly say “this is a fan channel,” sometimes we receive email at the show’s address ([email protected]) demanding to know why a particular channel operator blocked a user. While we don’t have a problem with blocking users on our own sites, we already have enough feedback to deal with, without being held responsible for the actions of various strangers.
    This kind of distribution makes it harder to provide clarification on episode content. For example, you may remember the Foolish Atheists episode, in which Patrick Greene, after trying to sue Ray Comfort over a bumper sticker, gave out his email address on the air and asked people to tell him if they agreed. We STILL get email directed at Patrick, even though it happened five years ago and we’ve tried to tag every video copy we can with a note that people should not email him anymore.
    It dilutes the audience, making monetization a bigger challenge. This is actually not a huge issue for us. However, the ACA is a non-profit organization, which is run entirely by volunteers and survives primarily through donations. Maintaining control of our own channels is one of many financial concerns that helps keep the organization going, although the income from video clicks is still pretty small. No member individually profits from the YouTube channel; all funds received go into the organization’s general fund, which we use to pay producer and training fees, buy equipment for shows done out of the studio, maintain a library and studio which may be used in a more prominent way in the future, and put on social events that our fans frequently attend.

    None of those have anything to do with the license requirements. They are using the license requirements immorally as a weapon to achieve immoral ends. That he is out of compliance is incidental.

    In short, Steve Mills didn’t include a URL link to the license text. He would lose in court. Had that been different – had he included that URL link, in all likelihood the ACA would have taken the same action, and would have been in the wrong legally. As is, the ACA is just in the wrong morally, and Steve Mills is not in the wrong morally.

  51. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Care to respond to the rest of my questions? Specifically, “Is all copyright draconian, or just whatever happens to annoy you for no explicable reason?”

  52. AhmNee says

    *sigh*
    “Now, remind me how what I said in the other thread was dishonest? Talking about hypotheticals clearly is now dishonesty? I ask again, what kind of planet do you live on?”

    Apparently one that values reason and reading comprehension more than yours.

    “But go ahead, ignore the “if I was in full compliance” part, just like you’ve done several times now, dishonest asshat.”

    Directly in conflict with

    “Regardless of whether Steve Mills was in the wrong, the ACA conducted themselves in a way that is inviting a lawsuit.”

    *drops mic*

  53. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    “Regardless of whether Steve Mills was in the wrong, the ACA conducted themselves in a way that is inviting a lawsuit.”

    They are. They have posted clearly that they have taken action for illegal reasons. They have clearly stated that they have taken action because of X things which are expressly allowed by the contract. This is inviting a lawsuit. Try not to publicly commit someone of a crime when you haven’t the faintest idea of the relevant law like the ACA.

  54. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    So, can we agree that you’re being entirely unreasonable for saying that talking about hypotheticals is dishonest? I mean – this is just extremely silly.

    Can we agree that you invented the facts that I was not a regular, and that I came here just to cause trouble, and that I was part of the “youtube free speech” crowd? I mean – this is dishonesty. And probably ad hom too.

    Can we also agree that the ACA had no clue about the relevant case law?

    The ACA sent several requests along the lines of “hey, we released this content under a free-to-share license, but could you stop using the content in a way expressly allowed by the license?”. AFAIK, they did not ask him to put up the link to the license text. The moral thing to do would be to have the message include “could you put up the proper license link please?”, not use it as a excuse in order to violate the spirit and intent of the license. The ACA thus conducted themselves in a despicable fashion. Can we agree to this? This is the only point I was trying to make, quite clearly, repeatedly.

  55. KIenna says

    I think you might wanna take a look at this. Not sure if it’s one hundred percent true, but perhaps it’s something to look into, or at the very least, bring up on your show for some interesting conversation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvUic7SFrcI

    I just started watching your shows about two weeks ago, and it’s been all I’ve been watching over the last two weeks now. You guys are great. Keep up the good work!

  56. AhmNee says

    Why am I letting myself get roped back into this?

    No, EL. We aren’t going to agree. Because you can’t seem to keep a coherent argument in your head without flitting about like a moth in a hurricane.

    Above, you argued that your claim that there was basis for a legitimate suit by you or Mr. Mills hinged upon full compliance with the CC license. But your statement of “Regardless of whether Steve Mills was in the wrong, the ACA conducted themselves in a way that is inviting a lawsuit.” is in direct conflict with that claim.

    You argued that by accusing Mr. Mills publicly of copyright infringement, that the ACA might be culpable of defamation. The letter sent to Mr. Mills was a private matter until HE made it public by broadcasting the letter on YouTube.

    You claim that the reason the ACA went after Mr. Mills wasn’t because of the copyright infringement and cite the the “reasons why we’re currently not entirely comfortable with people reproducing full episodes every week” section of the email as “illegal and immoral” of which they are neither, it’s just their reasons for being uncomfortable with it. If I told you that you could borrow my car if you mowed my lawn, and you hadn’t mowed my lawn in weeks. I may decide that I don’t like your new girlfriend and start enforcing that the lawn needs to be mowed before you use my car any more. The reason I started enforcing the agreement is immaterial if you weren’t keeping up your end of the bargain in the first place.

    The ACA did NOT take action against Mr. Mills. Sending a letter is not action. Threatening to take action is not action. If they had flagged his channel for copyright violation, your argument might have merit. They did not. There was only a threat. So your argument has no merit.

    Did the ACA/Russell have some misunderstanding of what their CC license allowed? Yes.
    Could the ACA under the CC license require Mr. Mills to take down past shows from his channel? No. Not legally. And they didn’t.
    Could the ACA ask/tell Mr. Mills to stop posting full shows? Yes.
    Would such a request be legally binding? No.
    Could the ACA stop Mr. Mills from posting future shows? Yes.
    Using the CC license? No.
    By changing the license they were using on future shows as they have currently? Yes.

    The most likely outcome would have looked much closer to this if the legal system was brought into the matter: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/startup-settles-creative-commons-licensing-dispute-tech-database

  57. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Above, you argued that your claim that there was basis for a legitimate suit by you or Mr. Mills hinged upon full compliance with the CC license. But your statement of “Regardless of whether Steve Mills was in the wrong, the ACA conducted themselves in a way that is inviting a lawsuit.” is in direct conflict with that claim.

    No, it’s not. I meant and stand by the use of words “inviting a lawsuit” under the following colloquial meaning: Doing something stupid which makes it much more likely that if a suit was brought, that you would lose. The actions of the ACA clearly qualify. Would they lose? Probably not given what I now know. Would their position be much weaker in court because of the idiotic things they have publicly said? Hell yes.

    You argued that by accusing Mr. Mills publicly of copyright infringement, that the ACA might be culpable of defamation. The letter sent to Mr. Mills was a private matter until HE made it public by broadcasting the letter on YouTube.

    And then Russell as acting representative of the ACA repeated the claim publicly, thereby fulfilling part of the statutory requirements of statutory defamation in most US states.

    You claim that the reason the ACA went after Mr. Mills wasn’t because of the copyright infringement and cite the the “reasons why we’re currently not entirely comfortable with people reproducing full episodes every week” section of the email as “illegal and immoral” of which they are neither, it’s just their reasons for being uncomfortable with it. If I told you that you could borrow my car if you mowed my lawn, and you hadn’t mowed my lawn in weeks. I may decide that I don’t like your new girlfriend and start enforcing that the lawn needs to be mowed before you use my car any more. The reason I started enforcing the agreement is immaterial if you weren’t keeping up your end of the bargain in the first place.

    “Argument by analogy is fraud.”

    Furthermore, your analogy is a non-sequitur. There was no borrowing going on. The license that they used to release the work clearly, unambiguous, and in plain language gave everyone the unlimited right to reproduce the whole work without limit (minus one or two minor license restrictions). The proper analogy is not “you can borrow my car”. The proper analogy is giving someone a car, not talking to them for years, then coming after those years saying “well, I know I signed a contract saying that it’s your car, but I want it back, and I found this loophole in the contract allowing me to repossess your my car”.

    The reason to use a copyleft license in the first place – at least amongst people who know what the hell they’re doing – is because many legal jurisdictions do not recognize the legality of “I surrender all claim to this work and put it into the public domain”. In several legal jurisdictions, if you make that declaration and someone uses your work, afterward you are free to tell them to stop using your work without explanation. So, ingenious people invented the copyleft licenses in order to fight against abusive and bad copyright law. Hence the term “copyleft”, a pun on copyright, and a pun which has a word of the exact opposite sense. It’s a great irony in the open source movement that we use copyright law in order to fight copyright law.

    The ACA did NOT take action against Mr. Mills. Sending a letter is not action. Threatening to take action is not action. If they had flagged his channel for copyright violation, your argument might have merit. They did not. There was only a threat. So your argument has no merit.

    Action does not necessarily mean legal action. I used it in the general sense.

    Furthermore, this non-legal action would probably be sufficient grounds for seeking a legal and binding declaratory judgment.

    Could the ACA under the CC license require Mr. Mills to take down past shows from his channel? No. Not legally. And they didn’t.

    Actually, they might be able to force takedown of shows on his channel. If he did not live up to all of the anal requirements – which it appears that he did not – then he is in violation of contract, the license does not apply, and all rights are then reserved to the copyright holder. That’s contract law for you.

    https://www.eff.org/press/releases/startup-settles-creative-commons-licensing-dispute-tech-database

    So, from skimming that, this is what happened: Some company behaved analogously to the ACA. They decided that they are going to try and claim rights over works that were released under creative commons. When it was pointed out that they would lose horribly in any court, they decided to back off their case.

    Had this company persisted in their bad claims, the other party at the very least could have sought a declaratory judgment in court, and very likely won. No damages, just a declaratory judgment.

    However, judges in the US are free to use their discretion for when one side is behaving above and above unreasonably, and may order them to pay reasonable attorney fees. I do not know how often that happens in practice, but I have to think that that this is one of those cases.

    As for defamation. I am unaware of the defamation rules for corporations, and I do not know if defamation would apply in your case. Whereas in the ACA case, Russell publicly accused a non-public person of a crime. As the defamed person is arguably not a public figure, a different standard – much better for the defamed person – applies to the civil case. At least in most US states. Again, I am not a legal expert, but I am very concerned that had things been just a little different, the ACA could have stupidly exposed themselves to a defamation suit, and all of the damages that come with.

    For a real life example: I remember seeing this one video recently where Dawkins said he wanted to call this one particular psychic a fraud, but he wouldn’t, and he wouldn’t even give the name, because that person frequently sues people who do so for defamation. Defamation is not something to play around with.

    So, actually, your link merely supports my position. The other company was smart enough to back off before things became serious, just like the ACA backed off before things became serious. Both realized that they have no leg to stand on and changed the licensing scheme going forward.

  58. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    The reason to use a copyleft license in the first place – at least amongst people who know what the hell they’re doing – is because many legal jurisdictions do not recognize the legality of “I surrender all claim to this work and put it into the public domain”.

    Ack. That’s not correct at all. There are a lot of other good reasons to use copyleft licenses, and strong copyleft licenses like the GNU GPL. What I mentioned is an important reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>