11.01.2006
Cashing In On Eris (or Hail Discordia!)
Can there be blasphemy in Discordianism? While sexy ol' Eris goddess of confusion of strife has been pretty clear about the rules (there aren't any rules), some followers of the joke cult/cult joke are hopping mad at a new published edition of their most sacred work the "Principia Discordia". The problem is that the new edition (re-titled "Discordia: Hail the Goddess of Chaos and Confusion") has been altered ever-so-slightly and had a big-ol copyright slapped on it.
Considering the fact that the work has always been in the public domain, this has caused ire amongst the famously tolerant Popes of Discordia.
"Unfortunately for us followers of Discordia they have seen fit to alter the original text, use shoddy, low quality graphics stolen from the Internet and have completely mangled the original layout of our most sacred text...This re-titled version of Principia Discordia is 140 x 165mm and comes in at 192 pages. The reason for the huge page count compared with the original, is that the editor has split up the original layout and spread sections over numerous pages. They have also changed some of the original text to subtly alter it's meaning and there are numerous just-wrongs throughout; far too many to list here." - Pope Anonymous Sausages XXIII
"I tried to keep an open mind when looking at this book. Being a Discordian, at first I saw no problem with our Wholey Book having it's contents modified and changed around. It's obviously against the Goddess of Chaos to not let something stagnate and all that. But this book is an actual example of Blasphemy, something very difficult to do in this particular faith. Ms. Beverly Potter has copyrighted this version of the Principia Discordia, with the reasoning that the following makes it a different book than the original and he own creative work altogether: Moving jokes around, Removing punchlines from other jokes, Changing fonts on a few pages, Adding a few new pictures, most of which are taken from other Discordian works in the public domain, the logic being that kopyleft+kopyleft= BIG CASH PAYOFF" - The Great Sun Jester
Though being Discordians, one did give it the highest rating.
"I have not bought this book, since I don't need another version of the text. However, I am readily giving it five stars, for it has thrown upon modern discordians even more Chaos and Confusion than they deserve." - Ivan Saunter "Axebaud"
Neither Ronin Publishing, nor editor Dr. Beverly Potter (a specialist in treating job burnout) have given any reason for the repackaged hands-off version. It seems an odd way to cash in on Eris. Perhaps they are rogue Subgenii trying to make a quick buck before X-Day comes. I wouldn't put it past those frop-smoking hooligans.
Addendum: This story has been Boing Boing-ed.
Labels: Paganism
Comments:
Well, now this is interesting.
You can copyright derivitave works of a public domain piece. Just because the original text is in the public domain, and someone went and grabbed it to make it into a book, with their formatting and so on, does not mean that their work is also in the public domain.
I don't thnk the Discordians have a leg to stand on here. This is all legal.
Very true, legally they don't have a leg to stand on. But that doesn't seem to be in question. Making a profit off of the Principia Discordia by degrading it's quality, changing formatting, and adding crappy images is just... well, lame.
Steve Jackson reproduced the whole thing, WITHOUT even changing illustrations, and copyrighted it, back in the 1990s.
Which ALSO sucked.
--A
"Steve Jackson reproduced the whole thing, WITHOUT even changing illustrations, and copyrighted it, back in the 1990s."
I was under the impression that he copy wrote only his additions to the book, not the Principia itself. In fact if I remember correctly he exhorts people to print their own copies in the forward.
Indeed, Mr. Jackson did maintain copyleft for most of the material. It also wasn't really so much of a cash-in thing for him, since he was doin' just fine with SJ Games; it was a "I can publish this so other people can get their hands on it" thing.
Still, I'm tickled to death by this, most especially because I was so very, VERY indignant right at first. Hail Eris, indeed. We'd all gotten just a bit complacent and self-righteous, hadn't we? Needed a good kick in your ear. ;-)
Okay.
First of all, they haven't copyrighted the Principia itself, just the layout they've used. I notice you've not mentioned this. It may have very well been the Publisher who insisted on this: Publishers get quite possessive about such things. Anyway, the text is still (K).
Speaking of which, a slight correction: the text is *not* in the Public Domain. It's Kopyleft, which is a different matter entirely.
Secondly, why is this any different to someone putting the contents of the Principia online?
Thirdly, at the time their edition was being prepared, it looked like the Principia was going to fall out of print entirely (apart from self-published Lulu and cafepress editions). As it is, the (original) Loompanics edition is now back in print with Paladin Press.
Why is it a Bad Thing that somebody publishes their own version of the Principia? It's not a particularly good edition (IMRO), but the folks who've published it have been doing good work ensuring Tim Leary's stuff is kept in print.
"First of all, they haven't copyrighted the Principia itself, just the layout they've used. I notice you've not mentioned this."
The entire text of their book is copyrighted, not just the layout. They call the Principia their "source material" but as critics have pointed out they change small things in the text to justify the copyright.
"Why is it a Bad Thing that somebody publishes their own version of the Principia?"
I'm all for everyone publishing their own Principia, but I'm also suspicious of the methods used here. I don't recall making a personal judgment call, I'm just reporting what has happened.
Well, as you will have read elsewhere, I don't really agree with you about the copyright issue--given it's a Derivative Work of an original which is *not* in the Public Domain. As I have said elsewhere, I agree with you that the Publisher's being a bit silly, but they *are* a publisher *lol*. I suspect there'll be some sort of statement from them sometime soon, anyway.
Cheers!
Quoting from the introduction to my Steve Jackson Games edition (by Steve himself):
"All the new stuff, like the original Principia, is public domain."
I'm not sure why people think this is not the case.
As to this current edition: perfectly legal, stupidly lame. And I don't see the point; who in their right mind thinks doing it this way will make them a dime more money compared to leaving the original text intact and open? Seems obvious it will only lose them sales to do it this way.
Hey, 2short.
Feel free and quote from Steve Jackson (who is *not* the Author of the Principia Discordia).
Here's a quote from Greg Hill (who *is* the Author): "it was published with a broken copyright--Reprint What You Like". Elsewhere in the Principia, in many places, instead of being called "Copyright", and instead of being called "Public Domain", the associated copying rights of the book are referred to as "Kopyleft".
This is prolly the answer to your rhetorical "I'm not sure why people think this is not the case": because it's not the case. Steve was wrong.
Hope this helps.
I just think it is a matter of class. If someone publishes the PD with a big KopyLeft on it, that is classy. If they don't, they are just another publishing company. Whatever. Does it really matter?
I find the whole thing perfectly appropriate for Discordia, though I probably can't comment authoritatively (who can?), not being an adherent myself. I do love many of the Dischordian ideas though. They are certainly my favorite tradition--so much more fun than Reclaiming or Druidic orders or any of the others.
If they'd done it right and well and good... wouldn't that just have been a shame?
Is it "All Hail Dischorida?" or only "Some Hail Dischordia?"
Or are you simply playing along.
I'm just sad they didn't include a section on Paris Hilton...
Post a Comment
Well, now this is interesting.
You can copyright derivitave works of a public domain piece. Just because the original text is in the public domain, and someone went and grabbed it to make it into a book, with their formatting and so on, does not mean that their work is also in the public domain.
I don't thnk the Discordians have a leg to stand on here. This is all legal.
Very true, legally they don't have a leg to stand on. But that doesn't seem to be in question. Making a profit off of the Principia Discordia by degrading it's quality, changing formatting, and adding crappy images is just... well, lame.
Steve Jackson reproduced the whole thing, WITHOUT even changing illustrations, and copyrighted it, back in the 1990s.
Which ALSO sucked.
--A
"Steve Jackson reproduced the whole thing, WITHOUT even changing illustrations, and copyrighted it, back in the 1990s."
I was under the impression that he copy wrote only his additions to the book, not the Principia itself. In fact if I remember correctly he exhorts people to print their own copies in the forward.
Indeed, Mr. Jackson did maintain copyleft for most of the material. It also wasn't really so much of a cash-in thing for him, since he was doin' just fine with SJ Games; it was a "I can publish this so other people can get their hands on it" thing.
Still, I'm tickled to death by this, most especially because I was so very, VERY indignant right at first. Hail Eris, indeed. We'd all gotten just a bit complacent and self-righteous, hadn't we? Needed a good kick in your ear. ;-)
Okay.
First of all, they haven't copyrighted the Principia itself, just the layout they've used. I notice you've not mentioned this. It may have very well been the Publisher who insisted on this: Publishers get quite possessive about such things. Anyway, the text is still (K).
Speaking of which, a slight correction: the text is *not* in the Public Domain. It's Kopyleft, which is a different matter entirely.
Secondly, why is this any different to someone putting the contents of the Principia online?
Thirdly, at the time their edition was being prepared, it looked like the Principia was going to fall out of print entirely (apart from self-published Lulu and cafepress editions). As it is, the (original) Loompanics edition is now back in print with Paladin Press.
Why is it a Bad Thing that somebody publishes their own version of the Principia? It's not a particularly good edition (IMRO), but the folks who've published it have been doing good work ensuring Tim Leary's stuff is kept in print.
"First of all, they haven't copyrighted the Principia itself, just the layout they've used. I notice you've not mentioned this."
The entire text of their book is copyrighted, not just the layout. They call the Principia their "source material" but as critics have pointed out they change small things in the text to justify the copyright.
"Why is it a Bad Thing that somebody publishes their own version of the Principia?"
I'm all for everyone publishing their own Principia, but I'm also suspicious of the methods used here. I don't recall making a personal judgment call, I'm just reporting what has happened.
Well, as you will have read elsewhere, I don't really agree with you about the copyright issue--given it's a Derivative Work of an original which is *not* in the Public Domain. As I have said elsewhere, I agree with you that the Publisher's being a bit silly, but they *are* a publisher *lol*. I suspect there'll be some sort of statement from them sometime soon, anyway.
Cheers!
Quoting from the introduction to my Steve Jackson Games edition (by Steve himself):
"All the new stuff, like the original Principia, is public domain."
I'm not sure why people think this is not the case.
As to this current edition: perfectly legal, stupidly lame. And I don't see the point; who in their right mind thinks doing it this way will make them a dime more money compared to leaving the original text intact and open? Seems obvious it will only lose them sales to do it this way.
Hey, 2short.
Feel free and quote from Steve Jackson (who is *not* the Author of the Principia Discordia).
Here's a quote from Greg Hill (who *is* the Author): "it was published with a broken copyright--Reprint What You Like". Elsewhere in the Principia, in many places, instead of being called "Copyright", and instead of being called "Public Domain", the associated copying rights of the book are referred to as "Kopyleft".
This is prolly the answer to your rhetorical "I'm not sure why people think this is not the case": because it's not the case. Steve was wrong.
Hope this helps.
I just think it is a matter of class. If someone publishes the PD with a big KopyLeft on it, that is classy. If they don't, they are just another publishing company. Whatever. Does it really matter?
I find the whole thing perfectly appropriate for Discordia, though I probably can't comment authoritatively (who can?), not being an adherent myself. I do love many of the Dischordian ideas though. They are certainly my favorite tradition--so much more fun than Reclaiming or Druidic orders or any of the others.
If they'd done it right and well and good... wouldn't that just have been a shame?
Is it "All Hail Dischorida?" or only "Some Hail Dischordia?"
Or are you simply playing along.
I'm just sad they didn't include a section on Paris Hilton...
Links to this post:
