Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
571
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 75:
Line 75: + + Line 111:
Line 113: + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Copyright (view source)
Revision as of 18:36, February 6, 2011
, 18:36, February 6, 2011Well there you go. Fixed a few wikilink errors, and added a reply to another person I was going to add.
:This encyclopedia is well appreciated, a needed response to Wikipedia's fatal flaws. I am for it. Nonetheless, Jalapeno is right. It is not really relevant that the GNU project is a left-wing, anti-American organization, or that the BSD license comes from the liberal fever swamps of Berkeley. The informal term "copyleft" may be etymologically annoying, but the idea the term represents is entirely sound. You just cannot have an open-source encyclopedia without a proper open-source license.
:This encyclopedia is well appreciated, a needed response to Wikipedia's fatal flaws. I am for it. Nonetheless, Jalapeno is right. It is not really relevant that the GNU project is a left-wing, anti-American organization, or that the BSD license comes from the liberal fever swamps of Berkeley. The informal term "copyleft" may be etymologically annoying, but the idea the term represents is entirely sound. You just cannot have an open-source encyclopedia without a proper open-source license.
::The Free Software Foundation (GNU project) has a left-wing anarchist bias, and I also reject that term "copyleft" because it implies that everyone who supports open source, even voluntarily or in a financial/promotional setting, is a communist liberal. Many right-wing people, especially the anti-Ayn-Rand libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Stephan Kinsella, support open-source because it is opposed to restrictive government laws and government-empowered lawyers getting in your way of free markets and a free press, and/or does not follow Locke's definition of property (it does follow Rand's), and/or is/might be financially profitable in certain situations. The man who first commercialized (and coined the term) open-source, Eric S. Raymond of the Open Source Development Initiative, was a libertarian for many years and is currently a neocon. Linus Torvalds is similar, he came from a Finnish communist family but became a wealthy conservative due to his work on the Linux kernel. Other musicians with past fan bases (such as NIN) have turned to Internet marketing and have dumped their record labels, making some stuff open-source/CC and/or charging for another/a better product. So we should not claim that open-source and free-software are "liberal" but are voluntary contracts any political person can agree to. (Private contract is limited government conservatism, isn't it?) However, see my note below about public domain under the "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0" section regarding possible risks with Conservapedia doing waiver such as these. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 13:36, 6 February 2011 (EST)
:There is a fundamental difference between an encyclopedia that allows free use of its material and one that restricts free use for the purpose of "stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site," as Conservapedia evidently does. If Conservapedia includes some old material that obstructs proper open-sourcedness, and if open-sourcedness (is that a word?) is a goal, then why not remove or sequester the old material? --[[User:Tannoce|Tannoce]] 08:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:There is a fundamental difference between an encyclopedia that allows free use of its material and one that restricts free use for the purpose of "stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site," as Conservapedia evidently does. If Conservapedia includes some old material that obstructs proper open-sourcedness, and if open-sourcedness (is that a word?) is a goal, then why not remove or sequester the old material? --[[User:Tannoce|Tannoce]] 08:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
A more "free market" solution would be to eliminate all mention of U.S. Government courts altogether, and provide for the settlement of copyright-related disputes through some sort of [[alternative dispute resolution]] (ADR) - perhaps [[mediation]] as a first step and then [[arbitration]]. If any litigation did occur, it would reduce the cost and time required to resolve it. A typical ADR boilerplate clause reads thus:
A more "free market" solution would be to eliminate all mention of U.S. Government courts altogether, and provide for the settlement of copyright-related disputes through some sort of [[alternative dispute resolution]] (ADR) - perhaps [[mediation]] as a first step and then [[arbitration]]. If any litigation did occur, it would reduce the cost and time required to resolve it. A typical ADR boilerplate clause reads thus:
{{cquote|'''Arbitration of all Disputes.''' As a material part of this Agreement, the parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the purchase of the Property, shall be determined by confidential, final and binding arbitration in Newark, New Jersey, in accordance with the then-existing rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Disputes, claims, and controversies subject to final and binding arbitration under this Agreement include, without limitation, all those that otherwise could be tried in a court to a judge or jury in the absence of this Agreement. By agreeing to submit all disputes, claims and controversies to binding arbitration, each of the parties expressly waives its rights to have such matters heard or tried in a court before a judge or jury or in any other tribunal. Any award shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties, subject only to judicial review provided by statute, and a judgment rendered on the arbitration award may be entered in any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party agrees that before undertaking the aforementioned arbitration, they shall submit all disputes, claims or controversies to a mutually agreeable mediator in an attempt to a informally resolve said disputes, claims or controversies without the need for arbitration.}} [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 12:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)
{{cquote|'''Arbitration of all Disputes.''' As a material part of this Agreement, the parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the purchase of the Property, shall be determined by confidential, final and binding arbitration in Newark, New Jersey, in accordance with the then-existing rules for commercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association. Disputes, claims, and controversies subject to final and binding arbitration under this Agreement include, without limitation, all those that otherwise could be tried in a court to a judge or jury in the absence of this Agreement. By agreeing to submit all disputes, claims and controversies to binding arbitration, each of the parties expressly waives its rights to have such matters heard or tried in a court before a judge or jury or in any other tribunal. Any award shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties, subject only to judicial review provided by statute, and a judgment rendered on the arbitration award may be entered in any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party agrees that before undertaking the aforementioned arbitration, they shall submit all disputes, claims or controversies to a mutually agreeable mediator in an attempt to a informally resolve said disputes, claims or controversies without the need for arbitration.}} [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 12:39, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:It would only be "free market" if we decided to put it in the contract. I for one have closed many Web site accounts for fear of someone bringing a charge against me where I have no means of self-defense and would be stuck paying not only the Web site owner thousands of dollars, but everyone's "legal fees" to the arbitration forum. Plus, if I am correct it costs companies money to join/fund these forums. I suggest we put as many waivers in as we need, such as waiving the right to a jury trial to discourage long cases and class-action suits. But to involve ourselves in something like this where we not only risk lacking the ability to pay and/or putting the financial safety of one editor/administrator/visitor against another, people's lives can be destroyed over a single debate about something. Conservapedia is not a multinational corporation, and we get picked on/spammed by liberals and atheists, both celebrity and troll, quite a bit. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 11:12, 6 February 2011 (EST)
== Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ==
== Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 ==
The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)
The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:NathanLarson et al, I thought you should know that Creative Commons at some point introduced something called CC0. It is a list of waivers, not a license, and it waives not only the copyright but all of the "all rights reserved" which come with copyright (this doesn't include patents or trademarks). If any part of waiver is not legally possible, the unwaivable rights are re-waived in a "public license fallback", and if that doesn't work, you agree to not to pursue any legal action against others regarding the work. I have applied this to my journal/poetry/opinion blog, but in terms of something like Conservapedia, every editor and administrator would have to know that there is no "taking back" of anything other than deleting it from Conservapedia.com, discouraging automatic spidering using ROBOTS.TXT, and asking/requesting/begging people. Also, there is no attribution requirement, so people can claim not only full credit for our work but partial credit as well (they cannot claim anyone here endorses it). For example, those liberal and atheist spammers can take whatever content they want, pervert it into something else, and claim it it was based on real Conservapedia content, so long as they don't say it's approved/endorsed by any of us. Links: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ CC0 FAQ] [[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ CC0 main link] [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode CC0 legal code]. Personally I think it would be too much of a hassle to put out press releases on what is and isn't genuine all the time, especially with people like Jon Stewart making fun of us on national TV. I just thought I'd share info on the new CC0 system with NathanLarson and anyone else who happens to read this, and why I feel Conservapedia shouldn't do it. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 10:59, 6 February 2011 (EST)
:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)