Copyright of text written at LifeIn19x19

[deja]

But maybe for the purposes of this forum, it's still best to adopt a Sensei's Library-compatible license, and then force those who wish to retain copyright to find another venue. For example, if John Ferryborn wants to post an exerpt from his upcoming article here, he can post it on his blog and post a link here instead. Or if tchan001 wants to post a collection of Chinese books and commentary with the idea that he might want to delete all his posts and make money off the content elsewhere, he should probably just post his books and commentary elsewhere to begin with and post links to it from here. That way anything actually posted here can be considered safe to archive in Sensei's Library and doesn't have the danger of being lost to a database outage or GD-style destruction. But we have to look at what we're losing out by going that route.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Personally I get a little impatient when the copyright club gets thrown about within this kind of context and I'm not saying that's being done here. I'm all for copyright protections. I publish too. But it's nice to have a place where old fashion conversation and knowledge can be shared without having copyright legalese hovering over our heads threatening to stifle free exchange.

[kirkmc]

Well, it has implications to users wanting to copy text from here:

Anyone can copy it and paste it elsewhere - that's the nature of the medium.

That's wrong. By default, noone can copy anything anyone else wrote. That's completely independent of the medium.

Of course there are some exceptions. There's the right to quote. Then there's fair use (whatever that means). And of course there may be a licence that allows certain things that are not allowed by default (legally speaking, if I tell you you may use it, that's a license, too). But if you want to be on the safe side, don't copy anything, ever.

Anyone can copy and paste. We're not talking about what's legal or not, but simply the nature of the medium (web pages) that allow copying and pasting.

[PeterHB]

Anyone can copy and paste. We're not talking about what's legal or not, but simply the nature of the medium (web pages) that allow copying and pasting.

I disagree kirkmc. We are talking about what's legal or not.

People are not talking about minor quotes of a sentence or two. The general body of people seem to understand that is covered by the exceptions in copyright, e.g. fair use.

People are talking about more major lumps of writing, e.g. tchan001's ( The example that started the thread) or John Fairbairn's carefully crafted occasional writings. That is the sort of thing that needs being clear about.

By being clear about, I'm suggesting either a statement that there is no copyright policy for posts or something like the creative commons license that a number of people have mentioned. The 'no copyright policy' would fit well with the desire of John Fairbairn to control the re-use of his work. A creative commons license would be my vote, but it requires a consensus and then a statement on the board.

[mdobbins]

My personal views on the issue are perhaps not the ones belonging to the majority.
(For the record I think you should work for the betterment of mankind without any thought of
personal profit or recognition. In fact, if your only reward for your troubles is that you're crucified,
then you should embrace that destiny with joy.)
Of course it has been pointed out that I am a political idiot.

Anyway, I keep this rant short.

You lot may keep a too elitist company to notice, but the majority of
people are:
1. stupid
2. lazy
3. evil.

Regardless of any copyright people will copy your text, alter it, lay words
and expressions in your mouth and insinuate things about your relationships
with barnyard animals.

The only thing a copyright will change is if you are able to take legal action.
If you do want to occupy the legal system, and make a lot of lawyers rich, this is of
course fine, but don't expect any other outcome.
(Murder has been outlawed a long time and this doesn't seem to stop anyone.)

Do we really want the forum rules to cause a lot of law suits, that is the question, as I see it.

Remember, the only right any human has ever really had, is the right to suffer.
Don't expect anything else.

An optimist, I see.

[freegame]

An optimist, I see.

hehe, But I think Helel is right.

The only thing a copyright will change is if you are able to take legal action.

I don't think anyone is going to sue someone else for copping his or her post on the forum...
Just don't post anything that someone else is using to make money (don't post digital copies of books ect.)

so you can discuss all you want but all you get is the right to take legal action, but because nobody will take this action the discussion about the copyright of forum posts is kind of pointless in my opinion...

[tealeaf]

An optimist, I see.

hehe, But I think Helel is right.

The only thing a copyright will change is if you are able to take legal action.

I don't think anyone is going to sue someone else for copping his or her post on the forum...
Just don't post anything that someone else is using to make money (don't post digital copies of books ect.)

so you can discuss all you want but all you get is the right to take legal action, but because nobody will take this action the discussion about the copyright of forum posts is kind of pointless in my opinion...

I would say that protection from (even the threat of) legal action is the more important result.

[CarlJung]

What was (is) the take on copyright over at gd? Can't we just adopt what worked over there?

[unkx80]

SL uses the legacy OpenContent License. It only stays that way because it is impossible to trace every single person who contributed to SL, and hence no way to get everybody to agree to a license change. New works should use the Creative Commons licenses instead.

Now this brings up the question of license selection, if we decide to have one on L19. If we want L19 to be compatible with SL, then I think OpenContent License has to be used. But then, we will have to live with an antiquated license. I am not a lawyer, but do you think it is possible to have L19 dual licensed using OpenContent License and a Creative Commons license? Any legal experts here?

[CarlJung]

If we want L19 to be compatible with SL, then I think OpenContent License has to be used.

Why would we want that? What problem does it solve?

[unkx80]

If we want L19 to be compatible with SL, then I think OpenContent License has to be used.

Why would we want that? What problem does it solve?

I was referring to ross' earlier post regarding the ability to (bulk) transfer content from the forum to SL.

From my understanding, none of the CC licenses are compatible with OpenContent License.

[CarlJung]

Do we want a specific policy for the copyright of people's text here at L19?

I vote No.

[tealeaf]

I'm back on a real computer now, so can actually express myself.

The only issue that would make me push for an explicit CC licence is that, at some point in the future, LifeIn19x19 might go the way of GoDiscussions. In that case, it would be nice if the backlog of posts could be transferred to the new site. With the existing copyright situation, that could cause problems if certain posters said that they refused to allow their posts to be reproduced on the new site. (Actual legal action is unlikely, but the worry is there.) It's one reason why I deleted my database dump of GoDiscussions when people were first talking about moving to a new site.

With a CC licence, to which you agree when you join the site, it keeps things flexible for future developments.

Apart from that, though, I'm perfectly happy just for people to leave it all unsaid.

[Phelan]

I wouldn't mind using CC, but I wonder if that wouldn't restrict posts from Go authors like John Fairbairn and T Mark Hall, for example. I'd like to hear their opinion on this.