Political Theory

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

jtucker — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:18:16 GMT

People are so funny about this stuff. The truth is much more plain and silly. There is a different department that does typesetting. They put that conventional notice in there and it went to print. In the meantime, I've been better about checking to make sure that everything says Creative Commons - we didn't always do that. Of course I should go back and change it to add that but i'm too lazy to pull something and fix it once it is up. If someone want to pull and and add CC and send to me on email, I replace the file that is there.

It is of course true that CC is copyright too but with maximum liberalities.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

AnonLLF — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:44:10 GMT

DD5:

ClaytonB:
Easy - in the current copyright system, if an author does not assert copyright of his own material, someone else may, and once they do, the author loses all rights to reproduce things which he himself has written! So, even if you oppose copyrights, you have no choice to assert your copyright lest someone else assert it and lock you out of being able to disseminate your own damn writing!

That sounds about right.

I used to wonder this too.I thought Kinsella was acting in a contradictory way.

I confess to not having known this.I thought if you didn't copyright your work you'd be fine though I have heard any work you create academically etc is automatically copyrighted so you can't get out of it either way.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Nitroadict — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:36:14 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

Nitroadict:
Have fun disproving the time stamp of the initial posting of the material, which doesn't lie, not even to Google. MD5, cryptography... there are options out there.

Of course, if you had a time machine handy, I would concede.

A mod like myself could do it. plus a time stamp on a post could not be provably antecedent to a printed page of the content. perhaps the paper page was typed out before the timestamped post, perhaps after...

Another mod could notice this though, but you are right, by design, this would be an exploit. If by design mod's couldn't alter this timestamp, then it would be less of a problem.

Of course, if others ina culture still rationalize intellectual property as valid, even defensively, & are the majority, this poses a problem for the minority of people in a culture against intellectual property.   I'm not sure if anyone has an answer for that one yet, admittedly.

Something as simple as a smart default could prevent a rationalization of using copyright defensively, in this case, methinks.   A smarter default on the part of anti-intellectual property advocates, in disseminating their work, would be to think about liscensing without intellectual property. Maybe a temporal license of initial transmission or assimilation of the work could be viable?

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:17:40 GMT

Nitroadict:
Have fun disproving the time stamp of the initial posting of the material, which doesn't lie, not even to Google. MD5, cryptography... there are options out there.

Of course, if you had a time machine handy, I would concede.

A mod like myself could do it. plus a time stamp on a post could not be provably antecedent to a printed page of the content. perhaps the paper page was typed out before the timestamped post, perhaps after...

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Nitroadict — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:38:47 GMT

Ansury:

Stranger:

You're begging the question. There is no such thing as copyrighting someone else's original work. This is what you are trying to demonstrate. However, you can copyright a work that is transformed from another person's work, but you can't deny the original author from his original work. Not even Kinsella claims that (anymore, anyway), what he claims is that someone who makes a transformed work can have his rights to his transformed work taken away by the original author.

So to prove it, go ahead and write your own book or 'publish' something you've written, but don't copyright it. Let's see if one of us here can copyright it ourselves, claim we were the original authors, and lock you out of being able to produce it. Would be a fun experiment...

Have fun disproving the time stamp of the initial posting of the material, which doesn't lie, not even to Google. MD5, cryptography... there are options out there.

Of course, if you had a time machine handy, I would concede.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Ansury — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:15:08 GMT

Stranger:

You're begging the question. There is no such thing as copyrighting someone else's original work. This is what you are trying to demonstrate. However, you can copyright a work that is transformed from another person's work, but you can't deny the original author from his original work. Not even Kinsella claims that (anymore, anyway), what he claims is that someone who makes a transformed work can have his rights to his transformed work taken away by the original author.

So to prove it, go ahead and write your own book or 'publish' something you've written, but don't copyright it. Let's see if one of us here can copyright it ourselves, claim we were the original authors, and lock you out of being able to produce it. Would be a fun experiment...

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Stranger — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:05:35 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
Government is magic fallacy? government is sufficiently wonderful to correctly determine the original author of a work, even should the original author not take steps to copyright his work (i.e. register it with the government), and thereby gives the opportunity for others to attempt to so register the work

That's why we have presumption of innocence.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:03:28 GMT

Stranger:
You're begging the question. There is no such thing as copyrighting someone else's original work. This is what you are trying to demonstrate. However, you can copyright a work that is transformed from another person's work, but you can't deny the original author from his original work. Not even Kinsella claims that (anymore, anyway), what he claims is that someone who makes a transformed work can have his rights to his transformed work taken away by the original author.

Government is magic fallacy? government is sufficiently wonderful to correctly determine the original author of a work, even should the original author not take steps to copyright his work (i.e. register it with the government), and thereby gives the opportunity for others to attempt to so register the work

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Stranger — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:48:37 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

If the book was published under creative commons wouldn't the symbol be "CC"? I think it's an all rights reserved copyright. In any case, I'm not sure that creative common license allows a different publisher to put a copyright on an existing manuscript and deny the original publisher the ability to sell or reproduce it. For example, this isn't true of Wikipedia; nobody can take Wikipedia's text, copyright it and then ask Wikipedia to respect the copyright (delete the content).

You're begging the question. There is no such thing as copyrighting someone else's original work. This is what you are trying to demonstrate. However, you can copyright a work that is transformed from another person's work, but you can't deny the original author from his original work. Not even Kinsella claims that (anymore, anyway), what he claims is that someone who makes a transformed work can have his rights to his transformed work taken away by the original author.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

DanielMuff — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:53:11 GMT

Stranger:

nirgrahamUK:

I believe its a defensive copyright so no one can stop kinsella printing up copies of the book.

Actually, according to the latest explanation by Kinsella, it's a defensive copyright so Kinsella can't stop anyone making copies of the book.

Linkage please.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

DanielMuff — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:50:38 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Stranger:

That sounds about bullshit.

Great argument.

I concur. His linking to sources was great as well.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:42:18 GMT

If the book was published under creative commons wouldn't the symbol be "CC"? I think it's an all rights reserved copyright. In any case, I'm not sure that creative common license allows a different publisher to put a copyright on an existing manuscript and deny the original publisher the ability to sell or reproduce it. For example, this isn't true of Wikipedia; nobody can take Wikipedia's text, copyright it and then ask Wikipedia to respect the copyright (delete the content).

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Stranger — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:52:10 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Stranger:

No one presented an argument, or any evidence, that writers could lose their own works if they didn't claim a copyright. It's just typical Kinsella bullshit that changes every time he gets called out on it.

What stops another publisher from putting a copyright on a manuscript, if the author and the original publisher fail to put on of their own?

Nothing stops another publisher from putting a copyright on a manuscript using the creative commons license. In fact it specifically allows it.

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:36:34 GMT

Stranger:

No one presented an argument, or any evidence, that writers could lose their own works if they didn't claim a copyright. It's just typical Kinsella bullshit that changes every time he gets called out on it.

What stops another publisher from putting a copyright on a manuscript, if the author and the original publisher fail to put on of their own?

Re: Essay "Against Intellectual Property" by Kinsella is itself protected by copyright.

Stranger — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:23:30 GMT

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:

Stranger:

That sounds about bullshit.

Great argument.

No one presented an argument, or any evidence, that writers could lose their own works if they didn't claim a copyright. It's just typical Kinsella bullshit that changes every time he gets called out on it.