Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Stephan Kinsella versus Barack Obama On Copyright Protection

The anti-copyright crusader Stephan Kinsella, who curiously has this notice on his site (My emphasis):

Terms of Use

Permission is hereby granted to copy, download, display, post or transmit the documents, articles, and other information on this web site authored by Stephan Kinsella, for personal, informational, non-commercial use only, provided that: (1) you do not modify the materials; (2) you retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the materials; and (3) you include a proper citation to the material (where available) and, where feasible, reference the URL for this site, www.StephanKinsella.com. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unpublished or draft articles or material (i.e., those appearing without publication information or otherwise designated as being in draft or unpublished form) may not be published in any publication without obtaining my written consent (email me (Stephan -at- KinsellaLaw.com) for any such requests).

has been one upped by a true "yours is mine" commie, Barack Obama (My emphasis):
President-elect Obama has championed the creation of a more open, transparent, and participatory government. To that end, Change.gov adopted a new copyright policy this weekend. In an effort to create a vibrant and open public conversation about the Obama-Biden Transition Project, all website content now falls under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License:

“Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Obama-Biden Transition project. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Change.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.”


8 comments:

  1. As I noted on your other post, Mr. Wenzel,

    You suggest that people who oppose IP ought to "pull" it. I am not sure exactly what kind of advice this is, since you appear to believe in IP, so you seem to be trying to make some kind of consistency advice.

    I have begun to use the CC Atribution 3.0 license--on my journal, Libertarian Papers, for example. This allows others to use the work even for commercial uses, even to create derivative works, etc.--the only condition is attribution. I don't think anyone minds this in the first place.

    Now you seem to suggestion one "ought" (to be consistent?) "pull" the copyright. Well, what else ought I do? I could "attempt" CC0, too--but I've explained here why I don't think this new, experimental technique won't work. "Pulling" the copyright won't work either--just saying you don't have or won't assert a copyright does not mean you don't have copyright, and does not mean you won't assert it. When people re-publish or use a copyrightd work, they need something legally effective that they can rely on. It's not clear that CC0 would work. Some half-assed, layman's amateur attempt to "pull" his copyright also won't work. I suppose I could have a laundry list attempt to get rid of my copyright: I could do Attribution license; a viral Attribution-Share-Alike "copyleft" License; in conjunction with CC0; plus a faux-promise "not to enforce" my copyright, and an email address inviting people to write me. Or, I could simply personally "adopt" the policy of never actually suing people for copyright infringement even if they do it.

    Yes, I could do all this, but it might make things worse--such a confusing situation to deal with and analyze. A simple, clean CC Attribution Only is just fine. Virtually everyone is happy to give attribution credit, so this condition is trivial, thus making CC Attribution the closest reliable thing to a copyright disclaimer.

    As an example, if I were publishing a book and wanted to include article X, I would much rather it be subject to a CC 3.0 Attribution license than CC0 or having some half-assed author-scribbled note on their web page, "I Hereby Exercise My COMMON LAW RIGHTS AS A FREEMAN to PULL my cOPYRIGHT". Why? Because this latter is just a statement; it is likely legally ineffective, except perhaps for setting up an equitable estoppel defense that I might be able to assert as a defense in a lawsuit... and the CC0 might turn out to be ineffective. Since I WANT to put the author's name on it, i.e. give attribution, the CC Attribution license imposes NO real conditions on me at all; I am free to do what I want. I would rather have a CC Attribution license that I can rely on, even if it imposes on me the draconian condition that I provide the author's name! Than a CC0 or poor-man's-crank-license that are legally shaky and unreliable.

    So, thanks for your legal advice, but I think it's wanting.

    I really fail to see how it harms you that some of us are voicing our views as to the problems with IP (problems an increasing number of libertarians and young people are waking up to), or with releasing our works virtually copyright free to the public.

    Respectfully--

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some half-assed, layman's amateur attempt to "pull" his copyright also won't work.

    Are you referring to Gary North's actions as "some half-assed layman's amateur attempt" ?

    Well, I commend you for being consistent in "pulling" (non-legal term) the copyright on Libertarian Papers, at least your consistent,but it applies to the world at large as much as a household that proves communism by voting as to what everyone in the household wears, what they eat and where they work.

    Most of this other stuff seems legal gobbledygook that I am not versed in? That said, how do you suggest, I legally approach the publishing of Last Knight given that I am interested in publishing the book and that Mises Institute is a libertarian institute that should be willing to go along with it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You may not be versed in the "legal gobbledygook"--and this is my point. Why are you handing out advice on things you know little about? You are jabbering on about "pulling" the copyright even after I just explained in detail on other posts why this can't be done, and accusing peopel of hypocrisy for doing things that is about the only thing they are permitted to do in this system. I'd just refrain from having a vocal opinion on this, if I had little knowledge of this subject area.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Stephan Kinsella
    You are jabbering on about "pulling" the copyright even after I just explained in detail on other posts why this can't be done..

    Oh yeah, can't be done. Gary North is lying to us when he writes:

    "In August of 1979, I published the essay by my anonymous Washington analyst, 'The Danger Is Defeat, Not Destruction.' By pulling the copyright, I helped get about half a million copies into print. It was widely printed."

    You are beginning to sound like one of those lawyers that is a deal killer. It doesn't sound like a very lucrative position for a libertarian lawyer.Or do you hide your libertarian hat in the closet, when you earn a living?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Well, I commend you for being consistent in "pulling" (non-legal term) the copyright on Libertarian Papers, at least your consistent,but it applies to the world at large as much as a household that proves communism by voting as to what everyone in the household wears, what they eat and where they work."

    So, if we don't "pull" it, we are hypocrtical; if we do pull it, it proves nothing. Nice corner you've got us in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I understand this is an old article, but it seems odd to me that Kinsella, a patent attorney, wouldn't have bothered familiarizing himself with copyright law.

    Publishing your work under a "creative commons" license or explicitly stating you intend for this work to be public domain is enough to release any would-be "violators" from liability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Publishing your work under a "creative commons" license or explicitly stating you intend for this work to be public domain is enough to release any would-be "violators" from liability."

      How do you know? I am not even sure CC licenses are enforceable, see http://blog.mises.org/16451/lets-make-copyright-opt-out/

      Delete