User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr

A bit over the top…

IMO, this should not threaten legal action. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 10:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a policy is needed, so I think this is appropriate. I agree with Geekman314 Geo.plrd, if you're not actually a lawyer... specifically an intellectual property lawyer... these are deep waters. You might as well just as well make this a plain statement of policy and leave out the legalese. Is it a contract? Is it not a contract? Who knows? It probably isn't a contract just because you say it is, and it quite likely could be a contract even if you don't say it is. In other words, lose parts I and VI.

Otherwise it looks pretty reasonable, although I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "You may only use the necessary amount of content for your purpose." Dpbsmith 11:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Geo, your draft is a splendid piece of work! I wonder if this is too restrictive, however. Do we need to require attribution? I suggest deleting Part III points 1 and 2 concerning attribution. I'd like to relax point 5 also.

Maybe we should grant a revocable license to use anything and everything, anyway anyone wants, while reserving the right to revoke that grant if something unforeseen and improper happens (like wholesale copying in a way that confuses or interferes).--Aschlafly 18:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

In furtherance on my suggestion above, how about something like this: a revocable, non-exclusive license to copy and reuse without attribution; revocation would occur only in the rare instance of protecting Conservapedia or its editors against harm. Such a license would be broader than Wikipedia's because it would free users from the need to give attribution, which can be a burden.--Aschlafly 23:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about Creative Commons?

The chief question I have is whether this entire area might not be covered better by one of the Creative Common licenses. I am not a free licensing maven at all, but I'm thinking the intent of what you've written is pretty close to cc-by-nc-nd, i.e. must be attributed; no commercial use; no derivative work (i.e. cannot be changed).

However, that does not include points 3, You may not use content to defame, libel, or slander another, or to perpertuate a libel, defamation, or slander, or 4, You may not alter content to discredit Conservapedia, or in a way not harmonious with its mission." Still, if you can't alter the content period, that would take care of point 4, and if the unaltered content is actually libellous or slander then Conservapedia has a problem anyway.

See http://creativecommons.org/license/

If a Creative Commons license will do, then their lawyers have already handled the legalese. Dpbsmith 11:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The Creative Commons seems close to what we need, but why require attribution? Also, conservatives dislike the concept of "public ownership". It seems the better approach might be a revocable, completely free license.--Aschlafly 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Free licensing

Again, IMO, it should simply be free licensing, that is all. The apparent restriction of content from Conservapedia, people ranting about how "they own the copyright to their work", strongly repels me. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 19:09, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Linus, whom are you quoting here? I haven't heard anyone say that in our entire discussion of this. My comments have been that we should be less restrictive (e.g., more free) than the Wikipedia license is.--Aschlafly 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

He's possibly picking up something I said. I'm new here, so what I say can be disregarded as far as policy goes, but I may have similar concerns to other visitors and newcomers. I do not know what the "conservative view of copyright" is, so maybe this is irrelevant to a true conservative. As a newcomer, I need a clear guideline on what I can add here, and what I can take away. Ownership of copyright is one core issue in that (moral rights are another). If Conservapedia owns the copyright to everything I contribute, then I can't take those same words and publish them elsewhere without permission from Conservapedia. This could influence my decision whether to contribute. From Conservapedia's perspective, requiring attribution is a form of advertising - when your text shows up on answers.com or in a magazine/newspaper, readers there know where it came from. Conservapedia may decide to limit what other people can do with it - am I allowed to burn a CD of the entire content, and sell it for $100? Do I have to say where I got it from? These appear to be the "threats" being guarded against by the proposed policy. The "small government" version of copyright would be that it does not exist - all content is donated to the public domain and anybody else can do anything they like with it. That seems to work for the US Government. --Scott 23:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I've seen some of the more, shall we say… spirited members of the community pulling out personal copyright as a weapon in an attempt to get things that they want to be done carried out. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 11:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's the specific incident to which I was referring: [1]. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 13:48, 13 March 2007 (EDT)