Copyright

Content on this site is under no license.

I do not grant you any rights to either the code or the content.

This is a protest to copyright.

However, I will probably¹ not take legal action as long as the content is used, transformed, distributed, or published as though it were under the licenses CC Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International for all writing and media and GNU General Public License version 3 for all code and otherwise behavioral content.

Note, though, that reproduction of any of this content is, and will be for a long time, technically, illegal.

This is a protest to copyright.

The term length in most countries is far too long. I do not care for the “inheritance excuse” and as an anticorporatist do not understand the ideation that a company should permanently own their founder’s intellectual property. A corporation is not a person, and cannot be creative.

Once the original owner is dead, the copyright protection continues and is passed on to their heirs. Except the heirs didn’t make the work, and if the heirs weren’t clear, people just start fighting.

The only reason that this rule is considered is from a monetary standpoint. The artist wishes to bequeath their rights over the work to their children so they can get money from it. That’s not, or shouldn’t be, the point of copyright.

The artist’s heirs cannot create more or build off of the original work any more than any random person could. They are not the original artist, so it makes absolutely no difference after their passing who makes the additional work.

If the artist was smart in their lifetime, then they made money off their work, and can leave that to their children. If they didn’t, that’s their fault.

My modest proposal for the term length is either (36 years) or (the author’s death),² whichever is shorter.

This is a protest to copyright.

It should be that fair use is by definition the use of a work that doesn’t harm or damage the original work in some way.

This is already the case on some microscopic scales, where the artist will cede royalties to certain performances of the work in the way of advertisement.

You should have to prove, though, that my fan rendition of your work overtook yours in either sales or public perception such that there is an obvious drop in income. If my transormative piece ends up generating more buzz and awareness of its original, as long as it’s not plagiarism, I don’t see the issue.

Copyright holders are only nice half the time. You shouldn’t need to ask for permission if your piece in no way damages the original and admits to its transformation. And if you’re not sure of whether you’ll damage the original, you shouldn’t have to wait until after you die to create a derivative.

This was a protest to copyright.

Even the phrase “intellectual property” is a bit strange, no?

The previous writing was all a satire commentary.

This site’s content is genuinely licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and GPLv3. Seriously. That should be legally binding.