5 ms·
I publish all of my original work into the public domain (using Creative Commons Zero), and have for years. The reason, for me, is almost entirely pragmatic.
by vitovito 5y ago
I publish all of my original work into the public domain (using Creative Commons Zero), and have for years.
The reason, for me, is almost entirely pragmatic. Copyright and licensing are protections, but in today's world, receiving the benefit of that protection requires a budget, a lawyer, and a willingness to undertake legal proceedings which could take years to resolve.
If I am willing to invest in (1) registering my copyrights, which in the US is the only way to receive damages, (2) ongoing and perpetual searches to make sure no-one has violated my copyrights or licensing, (3) the costs to have one or more lawyers write letters, sue, and defend the suit in court against a likely large corporation who will spend millions to delay the case and bankrupt me, then I absolutely should put a license on my work and actively engage with my copyright.
If I'm not, regardless of whether I cannot afford to or do not desire to make a lawsuit my life's work, then I should opt out of the entire system. That is usually my choice.
( As a further note, Yale Law professor Stephen Carter argues that there's a fourth condition there: (4) if I'm willing to kill someone to enforce a legal verdict in my favor. See the quote in https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci... )
- jobigoud 5y agoI feel there is a larger philosophical question here. If a law cannot be enforced, should it still be made into law, to signal the expected behavior to law abiding citizens, or should it be left out of the books? Say for example there is a untraceable doping substance that gives an unfair advantage. Should it be put on the banned substance list even if we can't ever prove usage?
- mysterydip 5y agoOh the laws work, they're just limited to those who can afford it, which is how those who can afford it want it to stay.
- hutzlibu 5y agoWell, on first glance the CC0 sounds good to me: "CC0 helps solve this problem by giving creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law" But the common criticism of CC0 is: "No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document." Which sounds very contradictory to me. I am not "waiving all my copyright and related rights to my works to the fullest extent allowed by law" if I would reserve my right to patent it. I mean, in the EU where I reside software patents are not possible in theory anyway, but I would be allowed to file a patent in the US with the CC0.
- vitovito 5y agoCopy rights are different from trademarks or patent rights. Related rights to copy rights are e.g. moral rights in France. CC0 and other public domain deeds (e.g. Unlicense) are about copy rights alone. If you mean to also disclaim trademarks or patent rights, you will need additional waivers for each of those, as they're different aspects of rights and law.