Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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?

Posted

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).

 

Posted

 

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!

Posted

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

Posted

 

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.
Posted

 

Also... the vast majority of Stefan's content is audio of him talking, or video of him talking Posted Image 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.

Posted

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.

Posted

 

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!

Posted

 

 

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

 

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 :D

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.