What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don’t need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
51 Comments
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17All wrongs reserved.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I think that you should just take out the left and right all together.. and choose freedom instead... however, removing "left" and "right" leaves you with just "copy" and of course... You can't even HAVE a copyright unless it's ENFORCED by people with guns rights?
I think we should again, just go with freedom and remove the "cop" part....
but if you remove "cop" and "right" from the word... all you are left with is... "y"
and "Y" do we need this stupid system at all? All it does is stifle innovation and we were better off without it. Copyright, copyleft... it's all force. - lagnut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13copyright is copywrong
copyleft is copyright - scrubadub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Copyright © IndiaeNews.com. Reproduction of news articles or any other content in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of India eNews is prohibited.
So I'm going to commit copyright infringement... "the"... omfg sue me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I've got an album released at http://www.childreninthegame.com under a totally different form of copyright called "do what you want with it, but don't be a dick... if you think what your doing is being a dick, don't do it"
I probably won't do anything if you are a dick though... just don't be a dick :) - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Copyleft depends on copyright. Without copyright, there's no copyleft.
- rdoger6424, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I prefer to be a copycentrist. I don't like all this copypartisanship.
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can we say "totally out of copyright's domain"? That's patents you're thinking of.
- Tryforceful, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sigh... anyone ever heard that happiness is its own reward? I'd be happy if I helped the world... don't need money for doing that. :)
Copyrights have become just another example of mile-taking where inches are given. I'm all for credit where credit is due, and against any vandalism of authorship that too often occurs in our society. However, copyrights have grown to become copyrestrictions, and I'm also against any actions that circumvent intellectual growth and propagation.
But, that's life as we know it. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow. One user makes a completely uninformed post, saying copyright is good because it accomplishes what patent law does (which it doesn't). Other users inform him of his obvious ignorance, and _they_ get modded down. Gotta love Digg...
- jdollah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Copyleft, GNU GPL, OSS. It all adds up to Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
- qiemem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@vbsurfer
Thing is, as copyright prevents the spread and integration of information and ideas, it really does far more harm than good. True innovation comes from standing on the shoulders of giants, pushing already great ideas even farther, building great ideas off each other. What you are suggesting is, for example, redesigning a solution for low friction movement everytime you want to make a car, a problem that wheels and axils already do a great job of. If there is a problem with a preexisting design, it will become apparent. While there is a tendency for human's to stick to the status quo, if anything, things like patents and copyrights, which in a set things in stone, only purpetuates this problem. Remember, patents were originally created in order to preserve the innovations of inventors and at the time it was desperately needed as good ideas were often lost because there was no way to track them. But now we have an abundance of methods for the distribution and preservation of ideas and the patent has become a hinderance. Besides which, the kind of people which to do see problems with traditional ideas and think outside the box would do so whether or not copyrights existed.
As far as innovation goes, I think the spread of ideas is far more important than forcing people to either stick to the way the patent/copyright owner wants or making their own thing. Without copyrights/patents in this age of unlimited information distribution, it is the quality of an idea which causes it to spread, whereas copyrights/patents forces the spread of ideas to adhere to artificial boundries, stifling innovation. - heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Boy, randomc0de, if only you could force everyone to live the way you want and think the way you want, the world would be perfect. For you.
- AirRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm all for copyright.
The way some people are using it is deplorable, but the concept is essential. How would you feel if you invented a perpetual motion machine and a giant megacorp grabbed your idea and sold it to the world, totally shutting you out without any means of compensation?
Copyright and the Patent System are there for a reason. The fact that people abuse it doesn't render it useless. - i440, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5A copyleft is a specific use of a copyright
- gd007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2copydown is a better term. you are copying it down.
- randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7You're honestly asking how I'd feel if I invented a machine that would allow humanity to exist forever without consuming energy? You've just essentially won yourself every Nobel prize in existance, and the adolation and worship of every human on the face of the planet - and you're worried about compensation?
Copyrights are bad because they're being abused by greedy ***** like you who think being rich is being God. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3randomc0de, there's a word for removing the incentive of innovation : communism. If you invent a machine, there has to be rules in place to ensure you can profit from it - If not, why would anyone bother researching new ways of doing things?
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Capitalist pig-dog(!)
- Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How would you feel if you invented a perpetual motion machine and a giant megacorp grabbed your idea and sold it to the world, totally shutting you out without any means of compensation?"
Science does not work like copyrights work - and copyrights do not protect the idea itself but the implementation or invention that coems out of ideas. A perpetual energy device is not an idea, it is an invention, one that took ideas of need and genius to invent. - Glandmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anarchy is not 'might makes right' - try studying politics rather than being drip fed by Fox.
Everything you wanted to know abouty anarchy (but were afraid to ask) http://tinyurl.co.uk/efom - Kurlowski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ randomc0de
"Copyrights are bad because they're being abused by greedy ***** like you who think being rich is being God."
I am a photographer and for me copyrights are good because they protect my work. Does it make me a "greedy *****" if I take a great picture worth money and simply want nobody else to profit off it? I dont think so. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1or like childreninthegame.net even.....
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Twit. When we're talking about copyleft and copyright, copyleft does not equal copyright.
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." -GPL - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I think that you should just take out the left and right all together.. and choose freedom instead...", this is called copycenter, and the freedom it grants isn't always a Good Thing.
A good example of the freedom of copycenter going wrong is Wine - the earliest versions were released under the BSD licence (the standard copycenter licence; it basically lets you do what you want), allowing companies to steal Wine's work and make a closed-source branch. (The Wine guys quickly changed the licence to the GPL to prevent them stealing any more.)
I'm not against copycenter, but it isn't always the way to go. - TehDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am moved to quote the Jargon File:
The copyright notice carried by the various flavors of freeware
BSD. According to Kirk McKusick at BSDCon 1999: "The way it was
characterized politically, you had copyright, which is what the big
companies use to lock everything up; you had copyleft, which is free
software's way of making sure they can't lock it up; and then
Berkeley had what we called `copycenter', which is `take it down to
the copy center and make as many copies as you want'".
Oh no, I hope I'm not abusing copyright law by posting that.... - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13monkeys just violated copyright laws.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"copyleft" should be trademarked so that it can be put on T-shirts and sold all across this great landmass we call Mexico/US/Canada.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Copyleft is just as viral as copyright.
- crunky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why are people digging this story? What is new here? RedHat India is having a sales seminar? Copyleft is something new?
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Agreed. Although you are opening your work for redistribution using copyleft, it all must be released under the same terms, which is technically a huge restriction.
- icarus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've no problems with copyright. Worse comes to worst when patent comes into the picture.
- Hender, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As long as it's called copyleft I will not use it, because it implies that I, by using it, am a leftist.
I guess that sounds ridiculous. The name really puts me off, though. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It figures that Red Hat would have to outsource their bitching about US & INternational Copyright law to India - home of Out Sourcery!
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The questions here are:
1. Are they really good for you? Is there something that might work even better? Especially given the impracticality of controlling redistribution, what are alternative plans for securing adequate recompense for your work? An attribution requirement might work just as well, since people tend to actually want to reward artists they respect.
and
2. Your livelihood aside, is it better for everyone if you don't get the benefit (assuming there is one) of a monopoly on your work? Is it in the public interest to grant you that control? Could we compromise on shorter copyright terms?
Maybe copyright really is the best solution to making sure you can support yourself, but I'm not as sure as you are. - GMoney79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did anyone else notice the link on the top of the right column in the story page? The copyleft page links to some page titled "***** n ***** and elephant dicks"???
What the hell is up with that?!?
If I really wanted disgusting information like that, I would just data mine the aol search database that was just released. - macunix88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2For a better explanation check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft - pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@battybattybatt
Erm, no. The term "commons" refers to resources that members of the community have rights. A single one of these things would be a common (by extension of the word's use regarding land), and a bunch of them are commons. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Forgot to mention that the GPL is copyrighted.
Good to see these FSF guys believe in their work.
(Yeah, I don't like the GPL, but I haven't yet seen a licence I would want to release my work under.) - betovarg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1two words: Creative Commons. Google it
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So you don't sell your photos to photo banks?
If I photoshop-digtally-destruct your foto and add some of my ***** to it, your copyright is dead and mine takes over - at least for the transformation. Your copyright lives ONLY for your ORIGINAL untouched foto. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1digg is trademarked, hence the digg store.
digg does NOT own the copyright to the stuff we all post here (no matter what the agreement says), although Kevin might think digg does - it doesn't. He doesn't have a peg-leg to stand on! - i440, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"(Yeah, I don't like the GPL, but I haven't yet seen a licence I would want to release my work under.)"
The MIT license. The only thing it does is protect from any liablity arising from the use of the software. Everything else is fair game. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Forgot to mention that the GPL is copyrighted.
Good to see these FSF guys believe in their work."
Can you be any more of an idiot? ANYTHING THAT IS COPYLEFTED IS COPYRIGHTED. Copyleft is merely a creative use of copyright. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Creative Commons. Google it." is 4 words.
The real phrase is: Creative Common License. Which is 3 words. The s at the end of Common never belonged there, it is a known typo just handed down deliberatly like pr0n and stupid ***** like that, - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"You can't even HAVE a copyright unless it's ENFORCED by people with guns rights?
I think we should again, just go with freedom and remove the "cop" part.... "
I can't own a house either, without people with guns enforcing it either. Saying protection of law iimplies lack of freedom is not correct. Lack of Law enforcement is anarchy. Anarchy leads to "might makes right", i.e. you only have freedom you can defend by yourself through force. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1And so forms the difference between 'open' and truly 'free' software.
The GPL shouldn't be as fascist as it currently is; it should allow derivative works to be published under other fairly-similar (non-GPL) copyleft licences. - rolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's actually an article about an art exhibit titled that and how the exhibit has been removed for obscenity or something like that.
http://indiaenews.com/2006-08/17944-india-nude-art.htm - dr3d, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1actually, a copyleft is a copyright
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8What about copyup?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is