Kevin Carson, in America’s Peculiar Institution, on C4SS.org (referring to stories mentioned in Homeland Security Mission Creep: “Intellectual Property Crime”):

“Intellectual property” is enforced by special FBI task forces, one of them run out of Disney headquarters, closely coordinating their actions with the Motion Picture Association of America. Internet service providers are enlisted as junior G-men, spying on their customers on behalf of digital content “owners.” See if you can get that kind of zeal and diligence from the cops if mere tangible property like your car is stolen.

Well, actually there is a precedent:  The authoritarian police apparatus that grew up around the task of reclaiming runaway “property” under the rules of that other peculiar institution, back in the 1850s.

Both peculiar institutions, yesterday and today, were on the wrong side of history. Human beings want to be free.  Information wants to be free. All laws to the contrary will fail in the end.

As mentioned in my post The Best Introduction to Libertarianism Ever, attorney and legal scholar Jacob Huebert has written a fantastic introduction to the modern libertarian movement. His chapter “The Fight against Intellectual Property” is also one of the best, most concise presentations of the libertarian case against IP I’ve ever read.

It’s no surprise, then, that Huebert’s performance in a recent IP debate at Whittier Law School is superb–this is just a great presentation (audio). His opponent gave it a good shot but really had no coherent argument to mount in favor of IP at all. It just goes to show you, there are no good argument for IP; this is why pro-IP libertarianism is on its death bed.

(See also Huebert’s wonderful recent Mises Circle talk, “Is There Hope for Liberty in Our Lifetime?”.)

Given this review of the movie Atlas Shrugged: Part I by Katelyn Horn, I’m expecting it to be barely watchable, at best. My plans to go see it this weekend are now shelved; it’ll be a rental.

I suspect one reason for deficiencies in the film adaptation lie in the fact that the production was rushed, in order to keep the film rights from expiring. Apparently the producer approached Peikoff for an extension but it was denied. So, the film had to be rushed into production to avoid the rights expiring, leading to an unsurprising impact on quality. Absent copyright, of course, this would not have happened and a good sequel would likely have been made decades ago. As this review on Prometheus Unbound by Matthew Alexander notes:

part of the problems with the movie derive from the fact that the man who owned the rights to the story was nearing the end of his term and so threw the movie together before his rights expired. Intellectual property — that foe of artistic creativity, which had a friend in Ayn Rand, has played a role in diminishing her work as it went to the silver screen. Make of that what you will; I merely point it out and pass on.

“Unlike contracts, copyrights and the rights flowing therefrom are entirely creatures of statute….” (Microsoft Corp. v. Grey Computer, 910 F.Supp. 1077, 1084 (D.Md.1995), quoted in Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 402 F.3d 881 (2005))

Like all other natural rights, which are also “creatures of statute,” right?

Yet another example of IP-caused censorship/thought control. (H/t Mike Reid) Reminds me of this quote:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. … This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” –C.S. Lewis

***

Google to sentence YouTube violators to ‘copyright school’

Google’s updated policies are intended to better educate users. | Reuters Photo Close

By JENNIFER MARTINEZ | 4/14/11 9:04 AM EDT Updated: 4/14/11 11:58 AM EDT

I listen to a lot of podcasts; my favorites include Slate’s Culture Gabfest and Political Gabfest, and TWiT‘s This Week in Tech and MacBreak Weekly. A new favorite is the TWiT network’s Triangulation. Leo Laporte and Tom Merritt do in-depth interviews with interesting tech people, such as Ray Kurzweil, Stephen Wolfram, and Michael Geist. The most recent Triangulation has a great interview with sci-fi author Cory Doctorow. Cory is on the forefront of finding ways to profit in the world of digital and networked media. One of his experiments involves selling or giving away ebook versions of a book and selling a $250 fancy hand-stitched hardback that includes an actual page of a manuscript from one of several notable author friends of Cory’s who donated those to him for this purpose.

Another idea he had is also interesting. For his books that he self-publishes, he asks for donations too. But for ones that use a publisher, he feels asking for a donation would be unfair–a way of getting around the publisher’s right to a cut. So what he does is this. First he solicits requests from libraries etc. for hardback copies of his books. He then compiles a list of people who need a free hardcopy of his books. Then, he gives away ebooks but asks anyone who downloads it for free, and who does not want a hard copy, but who wants to make a donation, to fund the purchase of a hard copy for one of the deserving libraries on his list. So that way the ebook consumer gets to buy the book which goes to a library, the publisher is happy, and Doctorow gets his royalty. Innovative!

Doctorow also has great comments about the viability–or lack thereof–of DRM etc. As he points out, if you lock up computers, encrypt and DRM files, you make your work hard to find, more obscure. And he says, while it may be difficult to find ways to profit off of your fame, no one can make  a profit off of obscurity. So it’s better to open things up and realize piracy is here and find a way to coexist with it, since the alternative is obscurity.

See also Innovations that Thrive without IP.

This is included as ch. 5 of Stephan Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023).

***

Mises post; Archived comments below.

In my post The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism, I discussed the origins of the modern libertarian anti-IP movement. I’ve learned a lot more about the antecedents and history of all this from teaching the Mises Academy course “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics.” This history if very interesting. It seems to me we can mark at least four periods of significant and vigorous debate about IP that included strong arguments against IP, which I set forth below.

1. The Anti-patent movement from 1850–1873

Machlup¹ lays out four historical periods leading to the modern patent systems of the world:

• Early History (pre–1624)
• Spread of the Patent System (1624–1850)
• Rise of the Anti-patent movement (1850–1873)
• Victory of the Patent Advocates (1873–1910)

Interestingly, many of the same argument, pro- and con, that were made then, have been made since. The most interesting of these four periods for our purposes is the third, 1850-1873. There is a huge amount of material from this period attacking IP—and from a free market perspective—that I have not been able to access or study in detail yet (but plan to). In this period, patents were attacked along with tariffs by free-traders, since both were seen to be obviously contrary to the free market. But with the depression following the Panic of 1873, there was a rise in nationalism and a reduced opposition to tariffs and protectionism. With the free trade cause on the ropes, its opposition to patents also became less relevant. The willingness to tolerate protectionism and other incursions into free markets and free trade opened the door to increased patent propaganda by special interest groups.

Thus, the anti-patent movement lost steam, and holdout nations such as Switzerland and the Netherlands finally gave in and reintroduced patent systems previously abolished (in the case of the Netherlands) or not yet adopted (Switzerland). Ever since, we have had a more or less universal, modern patent system in place in countries around the world.

2. The Debates among Individualist Anarchists the Late 1800s

As detailed by Wendy McElroy in works such as Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker’s periodical Liberty and Contra Copyright, Again, early libertarian and proto-libertarians and anarchists in the late 1800s had vigorous debates on this topic. Lysander Spooner in The Law of Intellectual Property; Or an Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas (1855) had argued for IP but Benjamin Tucker deviated from Spooner, his mentor, and rejected IP. A vigorous debated ensued in the pages of Liberty, in the 1890s, with Tucker taking the most consistent anti-IP position, and others, such as Tak Kak (pen name for James L. Walker) and Victor Yarros, arguing for IP. Tucker’s arguments were powerful and influenced others later, such as McElroy.²

[continue reading…]

1. Fritz Machlup, U.S. Senate Subcommittee On Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights, An Economic Review of the Patent System, 85th Cong., 2nd Session, 1958, Study No. 15 [↩]
2.  Update: see Molinari on IP; Proudhon: For Intellectual Monopoly. [↩]

Okay, I’m being a bit sensationalist–but I’m referring to Obama-Backed Tesla Sues Its Critics, which notes:

Subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of a half-a-billion dollars (Obama “investing” your money), Tesla Corporation — and by extension, the feds — has been embarrassed by car journalist Jeremy Clarkson and the Top Gear TV show on BBC. It seems a Tesla Roadster when driven hard on the track (and owners who shell out six-figures for sports cars like to know these things) goes a mere 55 miles. Not the 200 that Tesla’s PR machine claims. What’s more, Top Gear — which does not yet suffer from green political correctness like car mags stateside — says the “car of the future” takes 16 hours to recharge, and recommends (tongue planted firmly in cheek) that buyers shell out another $100,000 for a second Tesla while the other one recharges.

Ouch. Welcome to the real world, electric cars.

Tesla’s response? Sue ’em!

Presumably for defamation (and yes, defamation rights should be regarded as a type of IP right).¹ Not sure what is more outrageous–the lawsuit, or this example of the poor being taxed to benefit the rich.

It reminds me of the time Oprah Winfrey was sued by Texas cattle farmers for “defaming” their beef on her show (luckily, she was successfully defended by Chip Babcock, a partner at my former Houston law firm–who apparently continues to defend her from defamation lawsuits).

1. See Kinsella, “Defamation Law and Reputation Rights as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in You Can’t Own Ideas. [↩]

Just published at Libertarian Papers:

12. “Contra Copyright, Again”

by Wendy McElroy

Abstract: This revised version of the author’s 1985 article “Contra Copyright” includes a new, introductory section explaining the background of the author’s path to copyright abolitionism. The main article surveys various libertarian debates on this issue, including the anti-intellectual property (IP) views of Benjamin Tucker and the pro-IP views of Lysander Spooner. McElroy argues that the issue of copyright hinges on the question: can ideas be property? Because only scarce goods can be property, and ideas are not scarce, copyright must be rejected as unjustified.

As reported on Wired, “The House of Representatives voted Friday to overturn net neutrality rules created by the FCC in December.” Obama said he will veto it.

Net Neutrality is complicated. It’s hard for some libertarians to figure out where to stand on it.

Here’s how I view it:

1. It’s bad that the state helps cartelize industry.
2. It’s bad that ISPs etc. probably have more market power than they otherwise would, and that there is less competition than there would be.
3. But this is the state’s fault.
4. Given it’s the state’s fault, should the state use its antitrust power/FTC power to block mergers or to break companies apart? I say no. You can’t trust the state that caused the problem in the first place to solve it by exercising unlibertarian and unconstitutional power and law.
5. Given the current regime of state-intervention-caused limited competition, should the FCC impose Net Neutrality rules? I say no.¹
6. Given that the FCC did impose Net Neutrality rules, should Congress override them? I say a tepid yes.
7. Given that Congress did the right thing, should Obama veto it? No.
8. Will he anyway? Yes.
9. Are we doomed? Yes. (Kidding. I hope.)

[Mises]

1. Here’s why: Against Net Neutrality; Net Neutrality Developments; Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality; see also Harvard’s Yochai Benkler on Net Neutrality and Innovation. [↩]

Great question by Sheldon Richman:

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Question for Randian IP Advocates

The Randian case for intellectual “property rights” is that all value-productive action (which is necessary for life) proceeds from a creative idea, and therefore all property is ultimately intellectual property. Deprive a person of the exclusive right to his idea and you attack the very foundation of life.

That case prompts a thought experiment: Imagine a primitive tribe in which one member does painstaking research on which wild berries are good for human consumption and which are not. (The Randian case emphasizes that such knowledge is not automatic as it in the case of lower animals, but has to be discovered by intellectual effort.) He learns through his work that when he eats one particular berry he gets healthier and more energetic — better in every way. He also discovers that other berries are best avoided. The rest of the tribe observes and takes notes.

Question: Under Randian IP law, would the others need the innovator’s permission before they may consume the healthful berries? Or does the innovative have an exclusive right to the fruits of his effort. (Pun intended.)

If not, why not?

[From my Webnote series]

see

• “Copyright Is Very Sticky!“
• Leonard Read on Copyright and the Role of Ideas

From the Mises blog; archived comments below.

If you oppose IP and don’t want a patent–just don’t apply. Unfortunately, someone else might independently invent the same thing, patent it, and shut you down, since your having invented it first, or independently invented it, is no defense. So, you might also want to lower your knickers and reveal your idea publicly, to lower the chance someone else can patent it (this is called defensive patent publishing).¹

But if you don’t want copyright, you’re out of luck. Under the current law, copyright is received automatically. Contrary to popular wisdom, you don’t “copyright” something. It’s not a verb. You don’t need to put a copyright notice on your work. You don’t need to register it. It’s automatic. And there’s nothing you can do about it. (See “Copyright Is Very Sticky!“) This makes it often impossible to know who the owner of a given work is or who to approach to ask permission; it contributes to the “orphan works” problem as well–where older works still apparently under copyright fall into obscurity because the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be found for permission to republish.

Thus, some of us would prefer a return to the older law.²  Previously US law required a copyright notice and even registration to obtain copyright. But the US acceded to the Berne Convention in 1989, which forbids such “formalities,” making copyright protection automatic. The US is therefore unable to revise copyright law to make it “opt-in” instead of opt-out, because this would violate international obligations.

But we do not even have an opt-out system, since, as noted, copyright is automatic, and there is no way to get rid of it. Snide commentators sometimes say, “if you are against IP why do you copyright your works?” or “why don’t you just waive your rights?” Well we don’t copyright our works–your system does. And your system does not allow us to waive our rights. There is no way to make a copyright-protected work public domain. The closest thing to it is CC0, but this cannot “guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction”.

So why not reform copyright law to at least legalize creative-commons type licenses, including CC0–let us opt out if we want to!

I was being ultra cautious. https://t.co/9zjtaFI1iU My view now, after studying the CC0 license, and seeing how CC works, is something like this.
• CC0 by itself, is probably fine. The extra language is probably unnecessary since I think the CC0 “code” has fallbacks to CC-BY…

— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) January 22, 2026

Archived comments:

Anonymous April 12, 2011 at 2:09 am

Actually, there is no such thing as an “international obligation.” If Congress had the political will, it could repeal the Berne Convention and restore the previous copyright laws. The United States Congress is unable to change the copyright laws so long as they remain part of the Berne Convention, which we can leave at any time.

Although I agree with your opposition to all IP, I would be happy if Congress restored the original Copyright Act, which limited copyright to 2 14-year terms (with a renewal required to get the 2nd term) and limited copyright to specific types of works produced by Americans (works produced by foreigners were automatically public domain in the United States).

REPLY

nate-m April 12, 2011 at 3:07 am

The treaty itself is what causes the ‘international obligation’.

Having the ability to get rid of the treaty and thus remove the international obligation is hardly the same as having no international obligations at all.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm

exactly. Anon was spouting off. In any case there is no more impetus behind abandoning Berne any more than there is for revising copyright law to re-impose registration. They are just politically unrealistic. They will not permit it to be an opt-in system or fight to abandon the treaty that forbids it.

But it should be politically uncontroversial to make clear the system IS opt out–to provide a clear and reliable way for people to reject the copyright the state gives them. If the state offers me a job, I can say no (well, unless it’s fighting for LBJ or Lincoln or FDR). IF the state gives me a car I can give it away or abandon it or reject it. Why do I have to accept the right-to-sue they give me in copyright law? let me get rid of it if I want to. Who does that hurt? What possible argument could there be to not let me voluntarily choose not to have this copyright the state automatically conferred on me?

REPLY

John S April 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm

It is not necessary to return to the original Copyright Act (by repealing Berne) to restore balance. We could instead offer limited automatic copyright under Berne with the option to extend copyright through the registration process for a longer period (for example, re-registration every 10 years until some maximum time).

This would ensure that creative works with limited commercial interest enter the public domain relatively quickly, while ensuring that works which have commercial value are maintained. Works which are not re-registered would enter the public domain automatically when the term expires.

This approach also produces the added benefit that expired works are provably and irrevocably in the public domain. This will go far to prevent abuses such as NAB asserting “rebroadcast copyright” over public domain works.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 4:29 pm

John, how do you know this would be compatible w/ Berne? Are you a copyright lawyer, or have you studied this? Can you cite me to the provision of Berne that permits this?

REPLY

Andras April 12, 2011 at 2:42 am

Stephan,
Don’t be ridiculous. You want even more contradictions in the statute? Your suggestion would be like arbitrary keeping right or left in traffic law. Or in your sacred cow, homesteading, absolutely no rules who claims what. After all, why should I accept your totally arbitrary rules of homesteading. Just because you claim to be the authentic Libertarian?

REPLY

nate-m April 12, 2011 at 3:05 am

The reality of things like copyright is that there is no fundamental concepts or logic behind it. It’s something born out of censorship and it continues to this day because of a theory that it provides economic benefit to the nation.

It’s nothing but a mess of contradictions and violations of liberty. Adding some more contradictions in a effort to limit the damage that is happening to society is hardly a bad thing to suggest. Obviously scrapping the whole thing would be superior (and thus getting rid of the contradictions and other BS), but that’s not something that is going to happen anytime soon due to the nature of politics and the level of delusion of what really is the effect and purposes of ‘copyright’ that most people seem to operate under.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 12:31 pm

hunh? are you saying the state should give me a copyright and not let me renounce it? say what?

REPLY

Andras April 12, 2011 at 7:16 pm

Why would you care? If you don’t ask the state to enforce it they won’t. They are not allowed to!

REPLY

kingcherub April 12, 2011 at 8:25 pm

That may be fine for people who are aware of Stephan’s views on IP. But, if someone isn’t sure who holds the copyright on a given work or their views on IP, how are they going to know if they can use that piece of work or not?

REPLY

Andras April 12, 2011 at 10:32 pm

They shouldn’t. However, that wasn’t what Stephan addressed above. The system remains intact and he has practically opted out.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 13, 2011 at 12:47 am

You don’t know what you are talking about. If I sign a license with you, you publish my stuff b/c you can rely on it. You know I cannot change my mind.

That is the purpose of the CC licenses. You want to let people realize that they have the right to use it–that they will not be sued if they do. They cannot be sure, unless they are given an effective license, or the copyright is somehow removed.

It’s obscene the statist IP system will not let people opt out of it.

Andras April 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm

@Stephan,
Here you go again. Read my post instead of fighting your demons!
You should not care. No-one forces you to sign anything. Let them do whatever they want with your property. This is your property after all, you can do whatever you want with it.

Peter Surda April 22, 2011 at 4:14 am

Andras,

homesteading is based on the physical attributes of the world, such as volume or location. IP is based on the subjective human interpretations of the world, such as meaning and value. Of course, we can never avoid arbitrariness fully, just like we need to arbitrarily define the kilogram, meter, Kelvin, second or radian. But that is hardly an argument that one would make to equate astronomy (based on the physical attributes of phenomena) and astrology (based on meaning of those attributes).

Furthermore, the approaches contradict each other.

REPLY

Dan Q April 12, 2011 at 3:13 am

If there’s one key thing I disagree with Kinsella on it’s CC0. There is nothing wrong with it, there is the license fallback system to protect it, and as for the other Creative Commons licenses, like the GPL you are subject to the will of the organization’s management.

GPL proved this when GPLv3 (at the decision of the Free Software Foundation’s management) came out in 2006 and was forced on people who didn’t think of taking the upgrade clause out of the 1991 GPLv2 template.

Creative Commons does not force an upgrade so they say, but international treaty might force Creative Commons to act, and people will be forced to accept Creative Commons’ then-lawyers and adopt a new license, which perhaps could be not-so-permissive or require an update. What disturbs me the most is recent versions of ShareAlike, which allows Creative Commons Inc. to relicense your works the organization deems “in the spirit of the original licenses” (no such licenses have been chosen, but note the FSF screw-job above)

What exactly do you mean by “legalize” Creative Commons? How are the licenses “illegal”? I would be careful not to give ASCAP any credibility to their bogus claims.

REPLY

nate-m April 12, 2011 at 3:35 am

and as for the other Creative Commons licenses, like the GPL you are subject to the will of the organization’s management.

The GPL is not a Creative Commons license. Creative Commons licenses are a series of licensing suggestions that a author can choose to adopt different features of for different purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons

Like there is Creative Common licenses that allow for derivative non-commercial works. There is Creative Common licenses that allow for commercial derivatives, but only if they give credit to the original author. Stuff like that. The ‘CC0′ is a specific version of Creative Commons were the author surrenders as much copyright restrictions as possible.

GPL is not part of that family of licenses.

GPL proved this when GPLv3 (at the decision of the Free Software Foundation’s management) came out in 2006 and was forced on people.

It did nothing of the sort. Programmers were absolutely free to choose whether or not to give FSF discretion on licensing upgrades to the GPL. Nothing was hidden and nothing was forced on anybody. Plenty of people choosing to use ‘GPLv2 only’ proves this.

Your really being ignorant here or are being intentionally misleading.

What exactly do you mean by “legalize” Creative Commons? How are the licenses “illegal”? I would be careful not to give ASCAP any credibility to their bogus claims.

Unless your able to obtain clarification on the license of something that is considered ‘original work’ by USA copyright law then you are forced, due to liability concerns, to assume that everything defaults back to full copyright restrictions.

Gaining clarification can be very expensive and given that ‘derivative works’ tends to be viral this can put people creating complex works, that will invariably incorporate other ‘original works’ from disparate sources, in very difficult position. If they cannot afford to spend the time and money necessary to get clarification on copyrights, or they are unable to determine this even if they did spend the money and time, then they cannot take advantage much of the creative history of works that people have created in the past 75-100 years or so… even if nobody is ever going to seek licensing terms for it.

If your going to have copyright it is much saner to have things ‘default to liberty’ rather then ‘default to liability’.

REPLY

El Tonno April 12, 2011 at 5:55 am

“Programmers were absolutely free to choose whether or not to give FSF discretion on licensing upgrades to the GPL. Nothing was hidden and nothing was forced on anybody. Plenty of people choosing to use ‘GPLv2 only’ proves this.”

Absolutely correct.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 12:33 pm

are you giving a legal opinion about CC0′s legal validity? Even CC says they cannot ““guarantee a complete relinquishment of all copyright and database rights in every jurisdiction”.”

I don’t think you’re right about being subject to the will of CC’s managment–you adopt a given version, say 3.0. if CC adopts 4.0 later, that’s for other works.

CC is not ideal. I wish it did not have to exist. It exists only b/c copyright exists. If copyright were to go away then so would GNU and CC.

REPLY

J. Murray April 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm

I agree, it’s not ideal, but CC does have one level that does emulate a libertarian system, and it’s this one.

Based on my understanding of it, that one means that anyone can freely use my work, so long as I’m attributed as an originator, and it forces everyone from that point into infinity to provide the same permissions. It allows for anyone to use the work and profit off of it, but it disallows anyone who uses the work, and all future uses that are remotely derived from it, from ever entertaining a copyright action against someone who uses it in turn.

Of course, you’ve more knowledge than I in this case and may see something that I’ve missed, but it seems to me that if enough authors use this particular CC level then they can effectively destroy the entire copyright system as, eventually, all ideas will be effectively forced to be labeled with that same standard.

REPLY

Dan Q April 12, 2011 at 2:40 pm

(CC0) Even if the rights waiver and subsequent fallback license and subsequent inability to sue doesn’t work, just the fact that the author is waiving as many rights as possible is sufficient enough to be pro-libertarian and thus should be encouraged wherever possible.

(Other CC licenses) I still don’t understand what you mean by Creative Commons licenses being illegal to use. Please clarify for me.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 2:51 pm

this is why you should not weigh in with legal certainty on matters you don’t get.

The are not illegal. They just may not work. Most licenses are contracts btween A and B, where A gives B a license, and B gives A consideration (payment). In a CC license there is maybe no consideration, esp. for CC0. That is one reason, I think. In other countries they may require more proof, an actual bargain or negotiation, written evidence, or they may say the author has inalienable rights. who knows.

the point is if you do it, but it’s not effecive, it doesn’t bind you, and you can change your mind, and if you do, that means people can’t rely on it, so it’s like having no license at all.

this is a legal matter; I encourage you not to pronounce on these matters in loose cannon faschion if you don’t understand this. Some people have trouble with contract and license law.

REPLY

Dan Q April 12, 2011 at 3:41 pm

I wasn’t trying to be a lawyer, I was talking about being a libertarian and giving my personal opinion on what was most compatible with libertarianism.

REPLY

Dan Q April 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm

(CC management) Meaning international treaty might break version 3.0, and so CC reacts with Version 4.0, and CC decides that everything after CC must accept an upgrade. Just the “compatible licenses” clause we have in ShareAlike now is enough to be suspicious.

REPLY

Dan Q April 12, 2011 at 3:44 pm

mistake: everything after CC->everything after v4.0

REPLY

BioTube April 13, 2011 at 8:31 pm

In regards to the GPL, the relevant clause is “or (at your option) any later version”; this just means that any GPL-licensed software is effectively multilicensed under the version it was released under and every one after that. There are plenty of projects that strike that clause(such as the bulk of the Linux kernel codebase) and it’s even permissible to strike it after you initially included it.

REPLY

Peter Surda April 12, 2011 at 6:21 am

I have a better idea. Let’s make the whole IP opt-out. If you support IP, you can use it to “protect” yourself but need to respect other people’s IP too. If you don’t support it, you cannot use it to “protect” yourself but also do not need to respect other people’s IP. Quid pro quo.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 12:33 pm

yes. but they would not go for it any more than social security privatization/opt out.

REPLY

Briggs April 12, 2011 at 10:08 am

When posting images to sites like Picasa, users can choose among Public Domain and several Creative Commons options. What is the significant difference between PD and CC0?

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 12:31 pm

Public domain means its copyright has expired. You can not make the term expire. All you can do is waive your rights by CC0, but there is concern that that is not effective–the contract would not be binding. PD is just a description as to the status of a given work. CC0 is something you attempt to do to it–a license granted while the copyright is in force. for PD there is no copyright left.

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm

If Picasal lets you choose PD it’s a mistake, unless they are simply askingy ou to identify it as some old work already in the PD. You can’t “chooose’ PD.

REPLY

Stranger April 12, 2011 at 8:01 pm

All we have for evidence of that is your own fantastical opinion. Has such a case been brought to a judge?

REPLY

Stephan Kinsella April 13, 2011 at 12:48 am

it’s just a definition. Public domain *means* works whose copyright term is expired. You cannot make your copyright term expire. Even if CC0 were to work it would not be the same as PD though for some purposes the difference would be trivial.

REPLY

Anti-IP Libertarian April 13, 2011 at 10:16 pm

You are WRONG: Read about PD and then state if someone can willingly put some new work into PD WORLDWIDE.

Read about copyright laws in the US. And read about copyright laws in EUROPE (and worldwide). For example in Germany you cannot absolutely waive your rights into some work if you are not dead for more than a long period of time. A potential copyright issue for the user exists this way.

So a potential user of some PD work would encounter legal issues because PD does not apply (the same way) everywhere.

1. See Google’s Defensive Patent Acquisition; Prior User Rights and Patent Reform; Jefferson on Anonymous Defensive Patent Publishing; Defensive Patent Publishing. [↩]
2. See my Reducing the Cost of IP Law, proposing copyright law be reformed to “Require active registration and periodic re-registration (for a modest fee) and copyright notice to maintain copyright”. [↩]

Lifehacker post:

creativity

Steal Like an Artist and Relax: Original Is Relative

Adam Pash — If you know enough about any field, it’s hard to imagine you can do anything new or original. For people who do creative work, that kind of mindset can be paralyzing. But as writer and artist Austin Kleon points out, no idea exists in a vacuum; the key is identifying what’s worth stealing.

It’s not a new idea—you’ve very likely heard the phrase “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” It’s commonly attributed to Pablo Picasso, or T.S. Eliot, though it likely originated with neither. Kleon illustrates his point in the cartoon above, and has this to say on the subject:

Here’s what artists understand. It’s the a three-word sentence that fills me with hope every time I read it:

Nothing is original.

It says it right there in the Bible. Ecclesiastes:

“That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun.”

Every new idea is just a mashup or a remix of previous ideas.

Read more>>