Copyright or Copyleft

Total number of votes: 8

37.5% Copyright

62.5% Copyleft

May 15, 17 / Gem 23, 01 23:36 UTC

Copyleft enforcement policies  

I say that copyright is awful and so asgardia shouldnt consider It as a valid way to license work in asgardia, because copyright restricts knowledge and scientific development

  Last edited by:  Victor Calvo Casado (Asgardian)  on May 15, 17 / Gem 23, 01 23:38 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Errors

May 16, 17 / Gem 24, 01 12:34 UTC

Even if I'm definitely for copyleft, I think that (C)opyright can be an income source for a scientists-based Nation.
Maybe the "trick" is not to keep it for too long: 10-20 years, not more.

May 16, 17 / Gem 24, 01 15:15 UTC

I just cannot imagine scientific research with copyright, just the fact that you invented something doesnt have to be secured so hardly that anyone that thinks that can do better than you has It prohibited. I dont know, if you are going for liberalism just do It right, dont stop the market. Besides that IS what i already said, It IS to me very restrictive

May 16, 17 / Gem 24, 01 23:27 UTC

@rainbow - that's a pretty cynical and depressing viewpoint although perhaps an apt description of human nature.

It is true that in today's society people are looking to invent things for the sole purpose of getting rich however I actually think a lot of people invent things just because they like inventing and have enquiring minds.  

In a society which might resemble what Asgardia will be there will be certain practicalities which will likely control issues like copyright.  The biggest of those practicalities is the reality that it will be a unit enclosed within property owned or run by the state. This means anyone within those environments will of necessity be working for the state in some manner.  Unless we are to change all law (and in that case this discussion is moot) then anything invented under those circumstances will have at least an element of ownership controlled by the state.

A second thing to consider is that if we are to be as altruistic as we claim (based on most of the posts in the forums I have perused) then we should probably put aside the desire to invent solely for money and concentrate on getting the job done.  There is a very big job to be done and it shouldn't really matter who invented what to get it done. Or are we all so vain that we just want recognition rather than furthering the growth of humankind by creating a pathway to the exploration of space? (I include myself in this question)

@thor is correct. In the current world people are using copyright to make money and to stop others from making money.  These days people and companies just register any thought as a generic copyright to try and get money from other peoples' inventions and work. In many ways this prevents the flow of ideas and the utilisation of  development. So a discussion of copyright based on the current view (shown in @rainbow's post above) is not really productive to a society which of necessity is based on an absolute need to find a solution to problems or it dissolves, blows up or everyone dies. Remember any asgardian society will be housed in a hostile political and physical environment.  It will not be "life as usual" in any way. For a very long time it will be a state without territory which is a political nightmare. When there are habitats in space, the society will be housed in a created body which must by law be owned by the state, floating in a physically hostile environment. All habitats will be floating above the heads of people who politically hate anybody having an advantage over them and are willing to use any method, including military, to remove that advantage.  This is what needs to be overcome and under these circumstances necessity dictates situations. Who owns an invention or gets great wealth from it is not really the most important issue.

Having said the above it is true that one of the practicalities of this project is that we must deal with and be part of the world as it stands today. Perhaps we could encourage an attitude within the community that creates fertile ground for inventing based on free flow of ideas but with some form of recognition and compensation.  Perhaps some institution whereby if an idea is utilised and developed for, by or during the Asgardian project then the recognition and a set percentage of any profit derived from the sale or use of the invention within the world at large (ie. any entity outside of asgardia) would go to the inventors.  Perhaps this would suit current ownership and copyright law and allow for the free flow of ideas and the fulfilling of the needs within Asgardia, making the environment more effective in producing these much needed ideas.

May 16, 17 / Gem 24, 01 23:44 UTC

These days people and companies just register any thought as a generic  copyright to try and get money from other peoples' inventions and work

This is also called "patent trolling" and I wish not to see it into Asgardia: we should patent "things and processes" not just "ideas" (that's casually how EU's patents work, by the way).

About your comment on @Jason Rainbow's statement, I like to think your way but, as we must be pragmatic, we must recognize that, to develop an idea up to de level of a real invention (AKA up to the point it can be patented), it needs time, effort and money: those ones must be repaid in some way. Thus the need of the (C)opyright.
That said, I'm definitely against the idea of extending (C)opyright validity times over a "reasonable" amount: I saw USA have been forced doing it 'cause of companies like Walt Disney Corp. was going to lose their rights, after nearly a century. They pushed to have (C)opyright rights extended in time, all over the world, from 25 to 50 to 75 years, which is "way too much" in my humble opinion.

So, to balance initial investments (money, time, effort) and to give a viable income source, 10 or 20 years may be "enough"... but you're personally free to finance whatever project you wish to go under copy(L)eft, obviously. ;-)

  Last edited by:  Luca Coianiz (Asgardian)  on May 16, 17 / Gem 24, 01 23:47 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: formatting

May 17, 17 / Gem 25, 01 12:09 UTC

Oh for the love of Pete... 


Patents are for devices, inventions, processes, and similar items that are either tangible or part of a tangible process that produces, normally, a standardized product.

Copyright is for literature, art, documentation, and similar devices that result in the creation of something that is unique.

Trademarks are for branding purposes: an identifying symbol or mark that represents a larger thing, like a name or symbol.

Please do not continue the stupidity that confuses these things.


  Updated  on May 17, 17 / Gem 25, 01 12:10 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: added trademark details

May 17, 17 / Gem 25, 01 16:40 UTC

Thanks for the legalese, at least I learned something even today.
I may be wrong, but the OP was asking about the "concepts" (as @Jason Raimbow correctly stated): so Copyright or copyLeft? TradeMark or just-a-symbol? Patent or no-patent?.. it seems more correct to speak about "close" or "open", like into closed/open-source: leave things free or not?

That's why I felt myself free to say, agreeing again with Jason, there should be some income, at least, before to set things "free" (no-Copyright, no-Patent, no-Trademark), as forcing researchers and inventors to make all things for free may severely harm the research itself, nearly the same as leaving "unreasonable" copyright/patent/trademark time lengths.