Copyheart: Caring by no longer caring

Okay so, I'd been thinking about what to do about a minor conundrum I've been having. Namely, what to do about stuff on this site I'd created that either mixed hints of non-libre content or that I'm not proud of enough to release formally under the CC-BY-SA. For one thing I wasn't sure what to do about the text of the site; I didn't think anything I'd written apart from Stablehand posts was quite awesome enough to just shout "everything here is a quality resource!", which is what the CC-BY-SA had usually evoked in my mind.

And, well... long story short, the answer I guess is ♡ copyheart.

So what's that? It's a "nicer" variant on the idea of a copyright notice, which instead of reminding readers that the law restricts every use by default, reminds them that the author is fundamentally okay with the diffusion of their ideas. This is my version of it:

♡ 2014 TAKUMI. Copying is an act of love. Please copy, adapt, and share.

Some people might complain that this is the most hippy-dippy "copyright" notice they've ever seen (indeed, I've seen that), and you know what? I absolutely agree. It makes me feel like the biggest dork ever to put that in the footer. But at the same time it makes me feel way less like a hypocrite than writing the "truth" (the gritty truth) that by not taking any action to liberate my stuff, I choose to censor people by leaving all rights reserved. Which would suggest that I'm okay with that, and I'm not.

A really cool thing about copyheart is that it really neatly solves the problem I'd been having with fan art, which is that it seems intuitive to feel one can't liberate it, but on the other hand, I honestly didn't care what happened to it, and felt like there was something especially wrong with "retaining the right to censor" on things that weren't even "mine". Now, without trying to use the CC-BY-SA and open the can of worms of what happens when people have to use a libre licence on fan works, I can communicate my intentions that they be used and that I not act as a second barrier (after the original creator) to using things.

When you stop and think about it, it's really rather elegant for a handful of corny-sounding words without any legal fortifications built up behind them. (Which, by the way is why nothing I've already made CC-BY-SA is going un-CC-BY-SA any time soon, nor am I going to stop using it for my more substantial original things. It's like an extra safeguard for things you really, really want to stay libre.)

Accordingly, I may start bringing some of my fan things back onto Sangkara when I make them and when they're "good enough", particularly stuff for this project called "RESTART" (a spin-off to OFF) that I'm thinking about making.

And by the way, if for whatever reason you need to type copyheart, and you're using Linux like me, it's really easy to add it to your compose key! Find your .XCompose file in your home directory and put in the following line to type copyheart as "o3":

<Multi_key> <o> <3>   : "♡" U2661 # Copyheart

You'll need to have the XCompose file set up first but in my opinion it's the best way to type special characters (you can type practically anything) so it's worth it.

What's actually wrong with that old "download a car" ad

I finally thought about it and realised today why exactly that old "PIRACY. IT'S A CRIME" ad was so grating and stupid in the eyes of not just me but a lot of other people. (Trigger warning for Holocaust on the last one, but it's my favourite.)

And here's the reason it's stupid: it makes an improper logical leap.

It equates copyright infringement with theft metaphorically, then equates theft with crimes literally, and ignores that distinction to make the otherwise possibly reasonable assumption that if A → B and B → C, then A → C. That is:

1. Piracy is (metaphorically) theft.
2. Theft is (literally) a crime.
3. Piracy is (???) a crime.

And actually, to really make the argument it's making—that because there is a law you shouldn't break it—the ad also pretty much has to add an implied fourth term that because there is a law against something it must be inherently harmful/evil, so it's more like:

1. Piracy is (metaphorically) theft.
2. Theft is (literally) a crime.
3. Crimes are harmful and should not be done.
4. Therefore piracy is harmful and should not be done.

Now let's try that same idea with different things.

1. The government is a (metaphorical) octopus, extending its arms into everything
2. Octopuses are (literally) mollusks
3. Most mollusks live underwater
4. Therefore the government probably operates underwater

Government. It's a deep-sea operation.

1. Your brain is (metaphorically) your central computer
2. Computers are (literally) electronic computing devices
3. Electronic computing devices are usually made with plastic, metal, and silicon
4. Therefore your brain is probably made with plastic, metal, and silicon

Brains. They're a technological wonder.

1. Your body, according to the bible, is (metaphorically) a temple
2. Temples are a type of religious building.
3. Religious buildings in Christianity (or at least the statelier ones) often contain stained-glass windows, spires, and/or gargoyles.
4. Therefore you should be asking why your body doesn't have awesome gargoyles.

Bodies without gargoyles. It's a missed opportunity.

There could well be some little nuance I'm missing here since these sound a good deal more obviously absurd than the original, but I think this is the gist of it.

Footnotes

1. I realise I'm taking the octopus metaphor a little out of context in that it originally had to do with the US federal banking system rather than the government itself (and gosh was it a weird incident apparently), but to my credit, it has been used for a US government spy satellite.

Stablehand: Flarefowl

Finally, the flarefowl! This should have happened much, much sooner given how important these guys are supposed to be, but it's better late than never, I guess.

The flarefowl or hwnzj is Hinotoria's national bird, from which the country gets its name. It's known for an exceptionally beautiful, elaborate, and varied song, but it only sings these songs at any length in places it feels more or less completely safe. As such, the Hinotorians regard it as a symbol of deep, fundamental harmony, and portray it in stories as being common in times when civilisation is running smoothly and not appearing (or only speaking brief, harsh notes the few times it does appear) when there is a bad government, unrest, etc. In reality, the birds could care less what the government's doing, but they actually are sensitive to obviously hostile behaviour and prefer quiet over noise, making the part about unrest partly true.

Though I designed them to look like pheasant-family birds (tragopans and grouses in particular) I feel like the Hinotorians would probably not eat them as a general rule because, you know, if you outright kill The Bird Of Peace and eat it it makes you look really, really bad. That's probably one thing that separates them from the more Wilful Sengra nearby—it seems really probable some Sengra would just kill the bird without thinking and be like you silly Hinotorians, what's so sacred about a stupid chicken?. ...As you can guess the Hinotorians are at best rather neutral about the Sengra.

I haven't decided whether they are sexually dimorphic or not. At first they were supposed to not be and both be brightly-coloured the way macaws are, but then the way this came out it's honestly pretty crazy for a normal colouration, so I'm leaning toward this being the male colours and the female literally just having a bright head and a drab body like a male tragopan.

If I do that, I might make the female have a greater portion of yellow on the head and a yellowish-brown body so it looks more like the yellow emblems Hinotoria uses in official-insignia-type stuff and that people also use casually as a sort of common symbol of a shared culture (like Jinfèng's emblem).