As for this article, please "steal" it. That goes for anything I write. If you can sell it and make a buck, good for you. If you become a millionaire, shame on me for not thinking of it first.Unfortunately, Tucker's writings are about as popular and in demand as would be a self help book written by George W. Bush.
In reviewing Tucker's writings, for my upcoming book, I have discovered logical errors and factual errors across his writings on intellectual property, all of which I will detail in the book. However, I can't resist this gem in Tucker's pulling of his copyright. He writes,"If you become a millionaire, shame on me for not thinking of it first."
What does "thinking about it first" have anything to do with it?
Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that Tucker writes a book that the masses will crave. In this case, does it mean that Tucker under his copyrightless world will benefit? Absolutely not. The beneficiaries will be the companies that have the most efficient printing equipment and who have the best distribution systems.
Since Tucker has pulled the copyright on his works, they have no incentive to negotiate with him. Zero. They will just print his book. Tucker will bring up the 9-11 Commission Report as an example of why the book will be published with only one publisher. But Tucker forgets one critical point, there were no royalties paid to anyone on the 9-11 book. For Tucker, to mimic the results of the 9-11 book he would not only have to pull the copyright, but cancel any royalties or other payments for his book, otherwise any other publisher (other than Tucker's initial publisher) will have an advantage over Tucker's chosen publisher because they won't have to pay Tucker a royalty. Thus, they can always undercut the price of Tucker's chosen publisher and still make more money than Tucker's publisher.
It isn't always the person who is first to market with a product, as Tucker claims, (See my long list in my book), sometimes it is those that find ways to cut costs. And in Tucker's world of no copyright, the most obvious cost to eliminate would be royalty payments to Tucker.
On another point in this mornings musings from Tucker, Tucker tells us that, at "the Mises Institute... All our new works, insofar as it is possible, will be published with a Creative Commons license as a matter of signed contract with authors."
But, why stop there, why not allow authors of previous Mises published writings to publish copies of their own books? I'm sure Gene Callahan would be perfectly willing to accept such an offer, as would any other Mises authors (if there are any others) that initially published under a fixed fee that Tucker has written is an evil way for a publisher to act:
So I say to all authors: please look at your contracts. Don't sign your life away. Publish on the condition of Creative Commons. Claim your rights back as a creator and an author.
Now is your chance to really repent (based on your thinkng on copyright), Mises Institute, FREE GENE CALLAHAN's writings from what you claim are evil ways to snag an author.
Oh, and I am still waiting on the go ahead to publish Mises: Last Knight of Liberalism, for which the Mises Institute holds the copyright. If you are going to be consistent, be consistent.
