Pacal_II Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 So I've always thought that Stefan Molyneux was against copyright laws like most acaps are. So my friend recently wrote to me that on the bottom of the forum page we see: Copyright 2005-2012 By Stefan Molyneux. Is there any explenation for this?
ribuck Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Copyright 2005-2012 By Stefan Molyneux In 2005, Stefan did support copyright, as discussed in some of his old podcasts. It would be nice to see the assertion of copyright removed. I don't think it would change the legal position (because creative work is copyright by default in Canada), but the claim would then be made by the state rather than by Stefan personally. To change the legal position one could dedicate the work to the public domain or license it for wider use (as Stefan has done by applying the Creative Commons Attribution license to some of his YouTube videos).
KyleG Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 As an alternative to copyright, he could consider using a creative commons license.
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Thanks, I forgot about that, I will remove it
nathanm Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Sweet, now I can duplicate all of Stef's output, say it was made by me and make a million bucks!
ribuck Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Sweet, now I can duplicate all of Stef's output, say it was made by me and make a million bucks! It doesn't work that way in the real world. Search engines can work out which is the original site, and will send the majority of search traffic to it. Users will soon work out which is the responsive, up-to-date, authentic site, and will spurn the copy. The Wikipedia-scrapers of a few years ago soon learned that it doesn't work out economically. They have more-or-less died out. But someone really does need to try this, just so we can lay this meme to rest. So please do it!
KyleG Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Also... the vast majority of Stefan's content is audio of him talking, or video of him talking [H] You could attempt to rebrand his content as yours, but it would look silly
ribuck Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Lots of people reprint Shakespeare's work, but no-one else claims that they wrote it.
Kawlinz Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Sweet, now I can duplicate all of Stef's output, say it was made by me and make a million bucks! Guys, Nathan I believe is making one of those "joke" things.
ritherz Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Also... the vast majority of Stefan's content is audio of him talking, or video of him talking You could attempt to rebrand his content as yours, but it would look silly *sound* silly. I dare anyone do attempt to replicate that accent.
insertnickname Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 As “all rights reserved” is implicit, I think a better alternative to removing the copyright notice would be to replace it with a public domain dedication, preferably the Creative Commons CC0.
Hannibal Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 If it's sensible to use some kind of license to make sure that noone else can effectively stop you from using your own work (by copyrighting it themselves), then fine. But I don't really get all of the suggestions about creative commons licensing, etc. If intellectual property doesn't exist (as a 'thing' and as a valid concept), then you can write whatever you like in the footer - it's all junk.
ribuck Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 If it's sensible to use some kind of license to make sure that noone else can effectively stop you from using your own work (by copyrighting it themselves) It's a common misconception that if you release your work to the public domain, others can stop you from using it. If you want to make this claim, please supply some references. All of NASA's space photos are in the public domain. I challenge you to copyright one yourself, so that you can stop NASA from using it!
Hannibal Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 If it's sensible to use some kind of license to make sure that noone else can effectively stop you from using your own work (by copyrighting it themselves) It's a common misconception that if you release your work to the public domain, others can stop you from using it. If you want to make this claim, please supply some references. All of NASA's space photos are in the public domain. I challenge you to copyright one yourself, so that you can stop NASA from using it! The only claim I made was this If intellectual property doesn't exist (as a 'thing' and as a valid concept), then you can write whatever you like in the footer - it's all junk. So i'm not sure what you're getting at.
ribuck Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 If it's sensible to use some kind of license to make sure that noone else can effectively stop you from using your own work (by copyrighting it themselves) It's a common misconception that if you release your work to the public domain, others can stop you from using it. If you want to make this claim, please supply some references. ... i'm not sure what you're getting at. Sorry, I had missed the "If" at the beginning of your phrase "If it's sensible to use some kind of license". I thought you had said "It's sensible to use some kind of license". Apologies.
Hannibal Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 If it's sensible to use some kind of license to make sure that noone else can effectively stop you from using your own work (by copyrighting it themselves) It's a common misconception that if you release your work to the public domain, others can stop you from using it. If you want to make this claim, please supply some references. ... i'm not sure what you're getting at. Sorry, I had missed the "If" at the beginning of your phrase "If it's sensible to use some kind of license". I thought you had said "It's sensible to use some kind of license". Apologies. Cool. I was a bit confused
Recommended Posts