11 ms·

Uncopyright

148 points by brandonhsiao 14y ago

SparrowOS 14y ago
I like corporations. I am the opposite of a leftist. Please, use my stuff -- I want it widely used, especially in corporations. Today, we do not think old school. FaceBook does not charge users a fee, like old school businesses. They make money in other ways. God is just. That's all you really need to know in life. Niggers don't know God is just and do crime and shit. ---- Having class is a real thing. The Bible says it's an abomination when a slave becomes king. GPL people are drunk on a sense of power. They snicker to themselves, "Who should I let use this?" "Whine, and I laugh as I dance on your grave. No, you can't use it." "This person, I like, you can use it. "No, I don't like you. Na na (like a homo) you can't use it." ------ I've been too worried by Google banning me to get an account. I send tongues and many think it is spam. I got banned on reddit. Youtube hasn't banned me yet, but gave me one strike. Google values free speech. Reddit is low life scumbags. ---- Bush said of people protesting outside. "That's democracy." ---- Jesus found it futile to argue when He was judged. There are Don Quixote reality distortion fields/enchantments. You can be in the process of saving a soul, but God steps in, and ruins it. You just have to realize God has power to save souls and you cannot save someone if God doesn't want it. Many times I almost save a soul and ... groan... as a distortion field springs up. I usually say "fuck-it. I'm lazy" Jesus was lazy--could have talked his way out.
ishansharma 14y ago
Now if whole music, movie and gaming industry could think like this: "If people buy my ebook and then distribute it to 20 people, and each of those distributes it to 20 more, and those to 20 more … I’ve lost $76,000 in ebook revenues. Perhaps. That’s if you agree with the assumption that all those people would have bought the ebook if it hadn’t been freely distributed. I don’t buy that. In this example, thousands of people are reading my work (and learning about Zen Habits) who wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s good for any content creator. Also: I’ve made more money since releasing copyright, by far, than when I had copyright." -From the page. Love his viewpoint about copyright and piracy.
- markyc 14y ago
  it will get there, as distribution gets more focalised on the creator while losing the middle man. so everyone wins. authors are the tip of the spear because the blogosphere works so well in the current internet, but the rest are following
- greyman 14y ago
  Good for him, he is quite brave regarding how much he uncopyrighted. But still, I checked just now and - correct me if I am wrong - not all his books are free, for example "The Little Guide to Un-Procrastination". Also, he is selling courses. As I understand it, he is selling some products, and uncopyrighted some others for marketing purposes. Interestingly, some people will pay also for those works which are uncopyrighted. Still, it isn't the case that everything he offers is free and can be paid only voluntarily.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Free and uncopyrighted are different things. The author didn't claim the books were free.
    - adsr 14y ago
      But by giving up his right as an author to decide how his work is copied and distributed, he has no way of enforcing that. Instead he relies solely on the goodness of his "customers" hearts. Most open source licenses understands this and keep a final say in how the work can be used, for example.
  - k-mcgrady 14y ago
    Uncopyrighted != free. The first thing he says in the statement is: "If people buy my ebook...".
    - mpyne 14y ago
      Nothing can ever be free if you use the logic that "People are allowed to donate in support of my work"
bediger4000 14y ago
In the USA, and legally speaking (I know, YANAL), can this blogger really, truly give up copyright by just having a link to a notice like that at the bottom of the page? I mean, you don't have to mark stuff as "copyright", and you don't have to register it, it's automatically copyrighted as soon as it's fixed in tangible form. At least since 1976 the USA has worked that way. So why should some carefully, but not legally, worded notice allow you to give up those rights? Can anyone point to definitive information about this?
- networked 14y ago
  IANAL either, but there exist legal tools like CC0 [1] for releasing your work into the public domain or, barring that, waiving as many rights to it as possible. That said, even the FAQ for CC0 [2] carries the following notice: "Please don’t take the 0 (zero) in the name “CC0” literally – no legal instrument can ever eliminate all copyright interests in a work in every jurisdiction. CC0 doesn’t affect two very important categories of copyright and related rights. First, just like our licenses, CC0 does not affect other persons’s rights in the work or in how it is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. Second, the laws of some jurisdictions don’t allow authors and copyright owners to waive all of their own rights, such as moral rights. When the waiver doesn’t work for any reason CC0 acts as a free public license replicating much of intended effect of the waiver, although sometimes even licensing those rights isn’t effective. It varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction. While we can't be certain that all copyright and related rights will indeed be surrendered everywhere, we are confident that CC0 lets you sever the legal ties between you and your work to the greatest extent legally permissible." [1] See https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. Incidentally, this license was developed by a US non-profit, so it's reasonable to expect them to have paid special attention to it working with the US copyright law. [2] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ/ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ/
- StavrosK 14y ago
  IANAL, but the license to what you create is yours to set, it just defaults to copyright. If you say "I release this into the public domain", lo and behold, it has been done.
peachananr 14y ago
Way to go! "You can not steal what's given freely!" :)
- psionski 14y ago
  I'll be doing that when I eventually move to some remote Bulgarian village. There are people that steal there (mostly gypsies), but out of desperation, not because they want to. As I intend to continue working in IT, albeit remotely, I'll be making way more money than I need to live - so I'll put up a notice that reads: "Don't steal - come in and take whatever you need. Maybe we can even have a drink if I have time." I hope this means I won't get my computer stolen, and what I can't eat - I don't need, so they're welcome.
- choult 14y ago
  But the thing is, you can. You can reproduce it verbatim and you can call it your own. That's "stealing" of a different nature. If he's full-on rejecting copyright then I can (with his blessing) take his entire body of work, s/zenhabits/choult/ and profit. I'm not sure that the author counters/confronts that concept enough for me to accept that that is something he would acquiesce to.
  - psionski 14y ago
    Did you read the article? He says "copy it, put your name on it and make millions; I don't care". He even says "put nasty words in my mouth if you want". He's obviously OK with everything you mention.
  - cpressey 14y ago
    I guess the only way to know for sure is to try it and see.
  - leobabauta 14y ago
    Yes, you have my blessing to do this. In fact, numerous people have sold my blog posts in the form of ebooks on Amazon, with my name on it, without giving me any profits. They've also scraped my site and put ads on it. It's hard for me to be any clearer: I don't own my work, nor do I attempt to control it.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
Related: http://web.archive.org/web/20091023030542/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/19/the-point http://web.archive.org/web/20091023030542/http://diveintomar...
tjaerv 14y ago
Reminds me of the Unlicense: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/
ap22213 14y ago
He's got a point. If you believe the singularity people (like Kurzweil) Human technology has always advanced exponentially. And, is there any evidence that copyright and patents laws have changed this much? Inventors will invent, and creators will create, and not much will change that. Personally, I don't see a lot of rich artists, designers, musicians, inventors, scientists. But, I sure do see a lot of rich lawyers and business people.
- baby 14y ago
  He's got a point, until point 4 > 4. What if someone publishes a book with all your content and makes a million dollars off it? I hope they at least give me credit. And my deepest desire is that they give some of that money to a good cause. I don't believe him, and even if he thinks this way, he is the minority. Do you know the story about the bum who killed himself after seeing someone getting rich and famous from the song HE was playing in the streets? (my way)
  - hobs 14y ago
    The guy in question is not destitute, if he were broke, he would probably care a lot more about people reselling his work or making money off his labors without recompense. You are probably right that no one likes to see their work dragged through the mud, or have someone else get credit for it, or whatever the situation may be, but he is clearly stating he will take the good with the bad, because it is all worth it. You can’t steal what is given freely.
  - LatvjuAvs 14y ago
    At some point in your life, or not, you might realize that money < life. Until then you wi
  - nawitus 14y ago
    >Do you know the story about the bum who killed himself after seeing someone getting rich and famous from the song HE was playing in the streets? (my way) Please, tell the story.
SeanLuke 14y ago
There is significant debate as to whether public domain even exists except through copyright expiry. Indeed, the text of Creative Commons's "CC0" pseudo-public-domain declaration largely consists of admissions of this. Why not use a public license like CC0 or CC? It'll accomplish the same thing and is widely recognized as valid.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  Or just include a text copy of this blogpost. It's as clear as a bell explaining all the rights he's not reserving.
  - SeanLuke 14y ago
    Because "clear as a bell" is not a legally recognized concept.
    - Snoptic 14y ago
      Why do you say that?
      - BCM43 14y ago
        I think the biggest problem is definitions. Keep in mind that copyright means very different things internationally. Let's compare the CC0 text to this one. Note that I'm not a lawyer, and this is mostly conjecture, but pulled from a reasonable amount of reading I've done on the subject. See: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode Part 1: This talks about what copyright means. Given there is no universal definition, this clarifies exactly what is being given away. Part 2: This is worth quoting. . To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as future claims and causes of action), in the Work (i) in all territories worldwide, (ii) for the maximum duration provided by applicable law or treaty (including future time extensions), (iii) in any current or future medium and for any number of copies, and (iv) for any purpose whatsoever, including without limitation commercial, advertising or promotional purposes (the "Waiver"). Notice how this is unambiguous, and takes into account many different cases. Compare that the the blog post: There is no need to email me for permission — use my content however you want! Email it, share it, reprint it with or without credit. Change it around, put in a bunch of swear words and attribute them to me. It’s OK. First of all, what does use mean? Does that mean I can share it with others, and they have the same right to it? And is he allowed to take it back? What happens if he decides he does not want to have people giving away his books anymore? He's not said that he can't change it in the future. CC0 explicitly says it last for as long as legally permissible. Furthermore, what about in countries like Germany, where you can't actually give up your copyright? CC0 has a fallback (part 3) that essentially says "if I can't give up my rights to this, this is the license I am releasing it under", then provides a license with no restrictions. I've been packaging software for Debian recently, and dealing with copyright stuff. When you start distributing data internationally for a large organization, you really want to make sure all of your ducks are in a row.
unimpressive 14y ago
I'm reminded of Ramit Sethi (Of "I will teach you to be rich" fame.) As he puts it, he gives away 98% of his stuff free[0], but charges premium prices for his premium product. The money compensates him for the money (and risk) he put into developing the premium product. [1] [0]: As in beer. [1]: I can only assume at some point that would filter back down to his free offerings and voila! New material!
SagelyGuru 14y ago
> 4. What if someone publishes a book with all your content and makes a million dollars off it? This is why the public domain does very much exist. Even though the author may have placed his work into the public domain, so that anyone can copy it freely, he still remains the author and another person can not copyright his text without his permission. Just as nobody can copyright the works of Shakespeare. This is why it is important to make a distinction between a natural concept of authorship on one hand, and the unnatural and confusing commercial constructs of 'IP rights' on the other hand. As Richard Stallman correctly says, there is no such thing as 'IP rights' because nobody can even define them. There is just a bunch of different monopoly licences. Monopolies, on the whole, are a bad thing.
jasonkostempski 14y ago
I've always wanted this to be the default, especially for source code. No comments at the top of every code file, no license file in projects. My programs don't need a license file to run, it doesn't help anyone write better code and it doesn't help anyone understand the code any better, in fact, it only gets in the way of those things so I don't want it in my source. If you want to protect you're content, only then should you have to deface your creation with all kinds of warnings and threats. I bet any one who takes any pride in what they create, die a little inside when they see a (C), (R), TM or FBI Warning slapped on their stuff. Imagine if every song contained mandatory lyrics describing the license (someone funny, please make that song) or every painting had a block of canvas reserved only for legal jargon.
- jahabrewer 14y ago
  until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who licensed this day in August, nineteen sixty-two.
matterhorn 14y ago
I am a big fan of copyright and not a fan of thievery. If rights-holders want to put their work in the public domain, fine. But you have no claim on the IP rights of others.
exodust 14y ago
"use my content however you want! " Cool, so I can clone and automatically scrape your blog, copy to other blog site with about page names altered, but I'll keep your picture, just change the name? Then I'll put advertising on it, build up a following then sell the whole site? Thanks!
- leobabauta 14y ago
  Yep! And people have done this. I am not bothered by copying, but rather hope that some of the copying will go to building something better than just a copy. After all, nothing I've written is original, but built on the ideas of others.
  - exodust 14y ago
    Good philosophy, refreshing idea. I'd like to think I would do similar if I had a blog. Just be careful of people exploiting your generosity as per my previous fictional post.
zokier 14y ago
Good for you. I think the great thing about "strong copyright" is that authors can opt out of it. That way the attitudes of majority do not get pushed down to everybodys throat. "Strong copyright" provides a foundation on which different groups can establish different copyright policies (such as copyleft or public domain) freely. In comparison you can't build alternative copyright policies with "weak copyright" because there is no control. Instead a general policy is forced on all work. I believe that choice is good, and that is why I am pro-copyright. You are free to relinquish control over your work, but allow me to make my own choices on my work.
- Snoptic 14y ago
  You are assuming that restrictive copyright should be a personal choice. That is not a generally accepted concept. The majority has many legitimate claims to restrict the power of an individual, in general.
  - yakiv 14y ago
    Or to not give an individual power in the first place.
  - zokier 14y ago
    Yes, I was mostly expressing my personal opinion. I do recognize that some people think that authors control should be significantly limited or even non-existent. For those people I must just submit to "agree to disagree". I believe that the limits of author control are fundamentally almost purely subjective. I also believe that people having informed anti-copyright stance are still fairly small minority of the general populace even with the rampant "piracy" going on.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'm a liberal and totally believe that the majority has many legitimate claims to restrict the power of the individual. At the same time, I can't think of a situation where that justification is weaker than for creative works. As a general rule, society has more justification for regulating private conduct the more that private conduct has externalized impacts. E.g. we don't treat air pollution as a matter of personal choice because it harms others. Most people have no problem with private property, but it is in a way more of an imposition on the public than copyright. If you own a plot of land on Manhattan, you didn't create that land. It was there before you existed. You didn't fight to take that land from the natives. Your ancestors did that. You can tell people who want to live on your land to find their own, but there is only so much of it to go around. None of these justifications for regulating private property are applicable to creative works. If I write a program, I created it. It didn't exist before. At the same time, if I tell someone else to go write their own program instead of using mine, there is an infinite variety of programs that exist that they could write and call their own. They don't have to move out to Long Island, so to speak, to stake out their own little plot.
jpd750 14y ago
hallelujah!!!
vividmind 14y ago
This is so great. Actually Leo's post "100 Ways to Have Fun with Your Kids for Free or Cheap" (http://zenhabits.net/100-ways-to-have-fun-with-your-kids-for/ http://zenhabits.net/100-ways-to-have-fun-with-your-kids-for...) has at some point inspired me to create the random kid activity picker site (http://kidactivityideas.com http://kidactivityideas.com). I went to Leo to inquire about permission to use that list for the site and was pleasantly surprised by that uncopyright policy. I am a big big fan of Leo Babauta and I think there a lot to learn from him (at least I do pretty often). Thanks again great dude!
a3_nm 14y ago
> Someone could take my work, turn it into a piece of crap, and put my name on it. Am I right in thinking that this is forbidden by other laws than copyright law?
- lutusp 14y ago
  No, it's not forbidden as a matter of statute, but you might be able to sue in civil court. There are plenty of things that aren't legal violations strictly speaking, but that someone could sue you into next Tuesday for.

148 points by brandonhsiao 14y ago

I like corporations. I am the opposite of a leftist. Please, use my stuff -- I want it widely used, especially in corporations. Today, we do not think old school. FaceBook does not charge users a fee, like old school businesses. They make money in other ways. God is just. That's all you really need to know in life. Niggers don't know God is just and do crime and shit. ---- Having class is a real thing. The Bible says it's an abomination when a slave becomes king. GPL people are drunk on a sense of power. They snicker to themselves, "Who should I let use this?" "Whine, and I laugh as I dance on your grave. No, you can't use it." "This person, I like, you can use it. "No, I don't like you. Na na (like a homo) you can't use it." ------ I've been too worried by Google banning me to get an account. I send tongues and many think it is spam. I got banned on reddit. Youtube hasn't banned me yet, but gave me one strike. Google values free speech. Reddit is low life scumbags. ---- Bush said of people protesting outside. "That's democracy." ---- Jesus found it futile to argue when He was judged. There are Don Quixote reality distortion fields/enchantments. You can be in the process of saving a soul, but God steps in, and ruins it. You just have to realize God has power to save souls and you cannot save someone if God doesn't want it. Many times I almost save a soul and ... groan... as a distortion field springs up. I usually say "fuck-it. I'm lazy" Jesus was lazy--could have talked his way out.

ishansharma 14y ago

Now if whole music, movie and gaming industry could think like this: "If people buy my ebook and then distribute it to 20 people, and each of those distributes it to 20 more, and those to 20 more … I’ve lost $76,000 in ebook revenues. Perhaps. That’s if you agree with the assumption that all those people would have bought the ebook if it hadn’t been freely distributed. I don’t buy that. In this example, thousands of people are reading my work (and learning about Zen Habits) who wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s good for any content creator. Also: I’ve made more money since releasing copyright, by far, than when I had copyright." -From the page. Love his viewpoint about copyright and piracy.

markyc 14y ago
it will get there, as distribution gets more focalised on the creator while losing the middle man. so everyone wins. authors are the tip of the spear because the blogosphere works so well in the current internet, but the rest are following
greyman 14y ago
Good for him, he is quite brave regarding how much he uncopyrighted. But still, I checked just now and - correct me if I am wrong - not all his books are free, for example "The Little Guide to Un-Procrastination". Also, he is selling courses. As I understand it, he is selling some products, and uncopyrighted some others for marketing purposes. Interestingly, some people will pay also for those works which are uncopyrighted. Still, it isn't the case that everything he offers is free and can be paid only voluntarily.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Free and uncopyrighted are different things. The author didn't claim the books were free.
  - adsr 14y ago
    But by giving up his right as an author to decide how his work is copied and distributed, he has no way of enforcing that. Instead he relies solely on the goodness of his "customers" hearts. Most open source licenses understands this and keep a final say in how the work can be used, for example.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  Uncopyrighted != free. The first thing he says in the statement is: "If people buy my ebook...".
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Nothing can ever be free if you use the logic that "People are allowed to donate in support of my work"

bediger4000 14y ago

In the USA, and legally speaking (I know, YANAL), can this blogger really, truly give up copyright by just having a link to a notice like that at the bottom of the page? I mean, you don't have to mark stuff as "copyright", and you don't have to register it, it's automatically copyrighted as soon as it's fixed in tangible form. At least since 1976 the USA has worked that way. So why should some carefully, but not legally, worded notice allow you to give up those rights? Can anyone point to definitive information about this?

networked 14y ago
IANAL either, but there exist legal tools like CC0 [1] for releasing your work into the public domain or, barring that, waiving as many rights to it as possible. That said, even the FAQ for CC0 [2] carries the following notice: "Please don’t take the 0 (zero) in the name “CC0” literally – no legal instrument can ever eliminate all copyright interests in a work in every jurisdiction. CC0 doesn’t affect two very important categories of copyright and related rights. First, just like our licenses, CC0 does not affect other persons’s rights in the work or in how it is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. Second, the laws of some jurisdictions don’t allow authors and copyright owners to waive all of their own rights, such as moral rights. When the waiver doesn’t work for any reason CC0 acts as a free public license replicating much of intended effect of the waiver, although sometimes even licensing those rights isn’t effective. It varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction. While we can't be certain that all copyright and related rights will indeed be surrendered everywhere, we are confident that CC0 lets you sever the legal ties between you and your work to the greatest extent legally permissible." [1] See https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/. Incidentally, this license was developed by a US non-profit, so it's reasonable to expect them to have paid special attention to it working with the US copyright law. [2] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ/ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ/
StavrosK 14y ago
IANAL, but the license to what you create is yours to set, it just defaults to copyright. If you say "I release this into the public domain", lo and behold, it has been done.

peachananr 14y ago

Way to go! "You can not steal what's given freely!" :)

psionski 14y ago
I'll be doing that when I eventually move to some remote Bulgarian village. There are people that steal there (mostly gypsies), but out of desperation, not because they want to. As I intend to continue working in IT, albeit remotely, I'll be making way more money than I need to live - so I'll put up a notice that reads: "Don't steal - come in and take whatever you need. Maybe we can even have a drink if I have time." I hope this means I won't get my computer stolen, and what I can't eat - I don't need, so they're welcome.
choult 14y ago
But the thing is, you can. You can reproduce it verbatim and you can call it your own. That's "stealing" of a different nature. If he's full-on rejecting copyright then I can (with his blessing) take his entire body of work, s/zenhabits/choult/ and profit. I'm not sure that the author counters/confronts that concept enough for me to accept that that is something he would acquiesce to.
- psionski 14y ago
  Did you read the article? He says "copy it, put your name on it and make millions; I don't care". He even says "put nasty words in my mouth if you want". He's obviously OK with everything you mention.
- cpressey 14y ago
  I guess the only way to know for sure is to try it and see.
- leobabauta 14y ago
  Yes, you have my blessing to do this. In fact, numerous people have sold my blog posts in the form of ebooks on Amazon, with my name on it, without giving me any profits. They've also scraped my site and put ads on it. It's hard for me to be any clearer: I don't own my work, nor do I attempt to control it.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

Related: http://web.archive.org/web/20091023030542/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/19/the-point http://web.archive.org/web/20091023030542/http://diveintomar...

tjaerv 14y ago

Reminds me of the Unlicense: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/

ap22213 14y ago

He's got a point. If you believe the singularity people (like Kurzweil) Human technology has always advanced exponentially. And, is there any evidence that copyright and patents laws have changed this much? Inventors will invent, and creators will create, and not much will change that. Personally, I don't see a lot of rich artists, designers, musicians, inventors, scientists. But, I sure do see a lot of rich lawyers and business people.

baby 14y ago
He's got a point, until point 4 > 4. What if someone publishes a book with all your content and makes a million dollars off it? I hope they at least give me credit. And my deepest desire is that they give some of that money to a good cause. I don't believe him, and even if he thinks this way, he is the minority. Do you know the story about the bum who killed himself after seeing someone getting rich and famous from the song HE was playing in the streets? (my way)
- hobs 14y ago
  The guy in question is not destitute, if he were broke, he would probably care a lot more about people reselling his work or making money off his labors without recompense. You are probably right that no one likes to see their work dragged through the mud, or have someone else get credit for it, or whatever the situation may be, but he is clearly stating he will take the good with the bad, because it is all worth it. You can’t steal what is given freely.
- LatvjuAvs 14y ago
  At some point in your life, or not, you might realize that money < life. Until then you wi
- nawitus 14y ago
  >Do you know the story about the bum who killed himself after seeing someone getting rich and famous from the song HE was playing in the streets? (my way) Please, tell the story.

SeanLuke 14y ago

There is significant debate as to whether public domain even exists except through copyright expiry. Indeed, the text of Creative Commons's "CC0" pseudo-public-domain declaration largely consists of admissions of this. Why not use a public license like CC0 or CC? It'll accomplish the same thing and is widely recognized as valid.

pessimizer 14y ago
Or just include a text copy of this blogpost. It's as clear as a bell explaining all the rights he's not reserving.
- SeanLuke 14y ago
  Because "clear as a bell" is not a legally recognized concept.
  - Snoptic 14y ago
    Why do you say that?
    - BCM43 14y ago
      I think the biggest problem is definitions. Keep in mind that copyright means very different things internationally. Let's compare the CC0 text to this one. Note that I'm not a lawyer, and this is mostly conjecture, but pulled from a reasonable amount of reading I've done on the subject. See: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode Part 1: This talks about what copyright means. Given there is no universal definition, this clarifies exactly what is being given away. Part 2: This is worth quoting. . To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as future claims and causes of action), in the Work (i) in all territories worldwide, (ii) for the maximum duration provided by applicable law or treaty (including future time extensions), (iii) in any current or future medium and for any number of copies, and (iv) for any purpose whatsoever, including without limitation commercial, advertising or promotional purposes (the "Waiver"). Notice how this is unambiguous, and takes into account many different cases. Compare that the the blog post: There is no need to email me for permission — use my content however you want! Email it, share it, reprint it with or without credit. Change it around, put in a bunch of swear words and attribute them to me. It’s OK. First of all, what does use mean? Does that mean I can share it with others, and they have the same right to it? And is he allowed to take it back? What happens if he decides he does not want to have people giving away his books anymore? He's not said that he can't change it in the future. CC0 explicitly says it last for as long as legally permissible. Furthermore, what about in countries like Germany, where you can't actually give up your copyright? CC0 has a fallback (part 3) that essentially says "if I can't give up my rights to this, this is the license I am releasing it under", then provides a license with no restrictions. I've been packaging software for Debian recently, and dealing with copyright stuff. When you start distributing data internationally for a large organization, you really want to make sure all of your ducks are in a row.

unimpressive 14y ago

I'm reminded of Ramit Sethi (Of "I will teach you to be rich" fame.) As he puts it, he gives away 98% of his stuff free[0], but charges premium prices for his premium product. The money compensates him for the money (and risk) he put into developing the premium product. [1] [0]: As in beer. [1]: I can only assume at some point that would filter back down to his free offerings and voila! New material!

SagelyGuru 14y ago

> 4. What if someone publishes a book with all your content and makes a million dollars off it? This is why the public domain does very much exist. Even though the author may have placed his work into the public domain, so that anyone can copy it freely, he still remains the author and another person can not copyright his text without his permission. Just as nobody can copyright the works of Shakespeare. This is why it is important to make a distinction between a natural concept of authorship on one hand, and the unnatural and confusing commercial constructs of 'IP rights' on the other hand. As Richard Stallman correctly says, there is no such thing as 'IP rights' because nobody can even define them. There is just a bunch of different monopoly licences. Monopolies, on the whole, are a bad thing.

jasonkostempski 14y ago

I've always wanted this to be the default, especially for source code. No comments at the top of every code file, no license file in projects. My programs don't need a license file to run, it doesn't help anyone write better code and it doesn't help anyone understand the code any better, in fact, it only gets in the way of those things so I don't want it in my source. If you want to protect you're content, only then should you have to deface your creation with all kinds of warnings and threats. I bet any one who takes any pride in what they create, die a little inside when they see a (C), (R), TM or FBI Warning slapped on their stuff. Imagine if every song contained mandatory lyrics describing the license (someone funny, please make that song) or every painting had a block of canvas reserved only for legal jargon.

jahabrewer 14y ago
until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who licensed this day in August, nineteen sixty-two.

matterhorn 14y ago

I am a big fan of copyright and not a fan of thievery. If rights-holders want to put their work in the public domain, fine. But you have no claim on the IP rights of others.

exodust 14y ago

"use my content however you want! " Cool, so I can clone and automatically scrape your blog, copy to other blog site with about page names altered, but I'll keep your picture, just change the name? Then I'll put advertising on it, build up a following then sell the whole site? Thanks!

leobabauta 14y ago
Yep! And people have done this. I am not bothered by copying, but rather hope that some of the copying will go to building something better than just a copy. After all, nothing I've written is original, but built on the ideas of others.
- exodust 14y ago
  Good philosophy, refreshing idea. I'd like to think I would do similar if I had a blog. Just be careful of people exploiting your generosity as per my previous fictional post.

zokier 14y ago

Good for you. I think the great thing about "strong copyright" is that authors can opt out of it. That way the attitudes of majority do not get pushed down to everybodys throat. "Strong copyright" provides a foundation on which different groups can establish different copyright policies (such as copyleft or public domain) freely. In comparison you can't build alternative copyright policies with "weak copyright" because there is no control. Instead a general policy is forced on all work. I believe that choice is good, and that is why I am pro-copyright. You are free to relinquish control over your work, but allow me to make my own choices on my work.

Snoptic 14y ago
You are assuming that restrictive copyright should be a personal choice. That is not a generally accepted concept. The majority has many legitimate claims to restrict the power of an individual, in general.
- yakiv 14y ago
  Or to not give an individual power in the first place.
- zokier 14y ago
  Yes, I was mostly expressing my personal opinion. I do recognize that some people think that authors control should be significantly limited or even non-existent. For those people I must just submit to "agree to disagree". I believe that the limits of author control are fundamentally almost purely subjective. I also believe that people having informed anti-copyright stance are still fairly small minority of the general populace even with the rampant "piracy" going on.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'm a liberal and totally believe that the majority has many legitimate claims to restrict the power of the individual. At the same time, I can't think of a situation where that justification is weaker than for creative works. As a general rule, society has more justification for regulating private conduct the more that private conduct has externalized impacts. E.g. we don't treat air pollution as a matter of personal choice because it harms others. Most people have no problem with private property, but it is in a way more of an imposition on the public than copyright. If you own a plot of land on Manhattan, you didn't create that land. It was there before you existed. You didn't fight to take that land from the natives. Your ancestors did that. You can tell people who want to live on your land to find their own, but there is only so much of it to go around. None of these justifications for regulating private property are applicable to creative works. If I write a program, I created it. It didn't exist before. At the same time, if I tell someone else to go write their own program instead of using mine, there is an infinite variety of programs that exist that they could write and call their own. They don't have to move out to Long Island, so to speak, to stake out their own little plot.

jpd750 14y ago

hallelujah!!!

vividmind 14y ago

This is so great. Actually Leo's post "100 Ways to Have Fun with Your Kids for Free or Cheap" (http://zenhabits.net/100-ways-to-have-fun-with-your-kids-for/ http://zenhabits.net/100-ways-to-have-fun-with-your-kids-for...) has at some point inspired me to create the random kid activity picker site (http://kidactivityideas.com http://kidactivityideas.com). I went to Leo to inquire about permission to use that list for the site and was pleasantly surprised by that uncopyright policy. I am a big big fan of Leo Babauta and I think there a lot to learn from him (at least I do pretty often). Thanks again great dude!

a3_nm 14y ago

> Someone could take my work, turn it into a piece of crap, and put my name on it. Am I right in thinking that this is forbidden by other laws than copyright law?

lutusp 14y ago
No, it's not forbidden as a matter of statute, but you might be able to sue in civil court. There are plenty of things that aren't legal violations strictly speaking, but that someone could sue you into next Tuesday for.