Double Negative

Science shouldn’t use copyright to silence Creationists

This is exactly the sort of thing we’ve been talking about on fc-uk-discuss at the moment. Copyright being used to prevent criticism that you don’t agree with. Or to prevent misrepresentation. Or to prevent downright lies by fanatical idiots:

Cory says Science shouldn’t use copyright to silence Creationists

But what about using copyright to stop personal claims, or misrepresentation of personal opinion? Is there a line beyond which not using copyright to stop others ascribing opinions to people that they don’t actually hold becomes morally unacceptable? And can it be described quantitively?

Technorati Tags:

Lisp Logos

 Blog Images Lisplogo 128

Click on the alien for Lisp logos by Conrad Barski.

Technorati Tags:

Drawings From Photos on Flickr

Joining the flock of blogs reporting this, here’s a cool flickr group of drawings from photos:


Technorati Tags:

A Free Board Game

A beautiful and entertaining board game to download from Remix Reading:

Monster Mash Board Game

Best of all it’s Free, being under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike licence.

Games are a classic example for “open sourcing”: people can improve the rules & add their own counters. An open version of a card game like “Magic” would be great.

Technorati Tags:

Data Browser

Review of Data Browser

These books look good, but I can’t read them because Autonomedia didn’t complete my order and haven’t answered any emails on the subject.

So don’t try to buy them from Autonomedia if you can possibly help it.

Technorati Tags:


Reports and photos for dorkbotlondon 32:


Chris O’Shea

barrapunto (Spanish)

Cool Drawing Programs Book

I’ve ordered a copy of this wonderful-looking book and CD of drawing programs by John F. Simon:

Mobility Agents

Technorati Tags: ,

The NonCommercial Fallacy Three

“I don’t mind other people using my work but if they make money off it I want my cut.”

Let’s say that Linkin Park sample your ShareAlike music. I can’t see their record label saying “sure, make the track ShareAlike, heck, the video and the album should be SA too!”. So they’ll come back to negotiate proprietary licencing.

But let’s imagine for a moment that hell freezes over and they do make the single ShareAlike. You can sell your own copies of that single with the angle that you are the “original author”, and given the ridiculous pricing on CD singles and downloads you can undercut the record label and still make a profit. Or do what Dido did with “Thank You” and push your track on the success of the track that sampled it.

Either way you get more exposure and more money, and do more harm to the major label model, than sticking NC on your work.

If you think Linkin Park’s track just succeeds because of the marketing, SA is a better way of critiquing or tapping into this. If you think their track succeeds because it’s better art than your track, why do you want to stop better art being produced with NC?

Technorati Tags:

The Logic Alphabet

Ultimately via DataIsNature:

The Logic Alphabet