The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Economics Questions
 »
Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 13 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
SkepticalMetal posted on Mon, Oct 29 2012 5:48 PM

I know that IP is generally looked upon here unfavorably, and I understand. However as an aspiring filmmaker who can also appreciate the protection of one's own ideas, I was wondering how fellow Miseans view copyright alternatives, like Creative Commons. Where does CC fit in the libertarian viewpoint?

  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
Reply
SkepticalMetal replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 6:24 PM

Bump. Anyone?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,984 Posts
Points 89,720
Reply
Wheylous replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:05 PM

36 minute bump? Nice.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
Reply
SkepticalMetal replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:06 PM

What is it about this topic that makes people not want to respond?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760
Reply
Kelvin Silva replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:09 PM

Commons license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and even build upon a work that they have created.

Should be no problem in itself.

As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been "ported" to over 50 different jurisdictions worldwide. No new ports are being started as preparations for version 4.0 of the license suite begin.[1]

The original set of licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, without changes, at no charge.[2] The details of each of these licenses depends on the version, and comprises a selection of four conditions:

Attribution Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
Non-commercial Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
Non-derivative No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
Share-alike Share-alike (sa)

Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

By attribution is probably the one that fits the ancap view the best. You can do anything you want to manipulate the work, but you must cite the original author first.

The other ones just put limitations under how the work can be used.

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760
Reply
Kelvin Silva replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:13 PM

Commons license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and even build upon a work that they have created.

No problem here.

Anyone can manipulate the work however they choose.

There are different types of them though as to put different kinds of restrictions.

Attribution Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
Non-commercial Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
Non-derivative No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
Share-alike Share-alike (sa) Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

Attribution is the one youd want to go for. It gives the most freedom where you can manipulate and reproduce the object in question however you want, as long as the original author is recognized.

You can use a combination of any of these 4 to strap on to your work.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760
Reply
Answered (Not Verified) Kelvin Silva replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:15 PM
Suggested by Kelvin Silva

Me are trying to post but it wont show.

Commons license is used when an author wants to give people the right to share, use, and even build upon a work that they have created.

No problem here.

Anyone can manipulate the work however they choose.

There are different types of them though as to put different kinds of restrictions.

Attribution Attribution (by) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these.
Non-commercial Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
Non-derivative No Derivative Works (nd) Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it.
Share-alike Share-alike (sa) Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)

Attribution is the one youd want to go for. It gives the most freedom where you can manipulate and reproduce the object in question however you want, as long as the original author is recognized.

You can use a combination of any of these 4 to strap on to your work.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
Reply
SkepticalMetal replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:18 PM

I'd use noncommercial for mine.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760
Reply
Answered (Not Verified) Kelvin Silva replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:22 PM
Suggested by Kelvin Silva

But then youd be just delving into IP laws.

You can't do this or that with my idea.

By attribution youre getting as furthest away as possible from IP mindset, but still being credited for your hard work.

You can also copyleft it, all derivative works must also be free.

So for example i release Code X that is free for anyone to use modify/distribute.

Person y takes code X and uses it to build another Code Z but copy rights Code Z and makes it non free.

Applying a copyleft to Code X makes it so Person y cannot put restriction on Code Z modification of Code X.

Taken from: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/

Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.

The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
Reply
SkepticalMetal replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:35 PM

But what if I wanted to make money off of my work? What if, say, I had a video game developing company?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760
Reply
Kelvin Silva replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:41 PM

Then i guess you ought to stick a price tag on the game.

And keep the source code in a safe place.

After all, it is all voluntary if you DONT give out the source code. No one is forcing you to make a software free.

If you make a shooter game about the story of a soldier in WW2, you cant restrict someone from making a game with the same Idea.

Its all about the idea.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
Reply
Answered (Not Verified) SkepticalMetal replied on Mon, Oct 29 2012 10:43 PM
Suggested by Kelvin Silva

I personally like Murray Rothbard's suggestion of contracts.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
432 Posts
Points 6,830
Reply
Groucho replied on Tue, Oct 30 2012 3:03 AM

I think copyright of any kind is destructive to creativity in general and liberty in particular, but achieving legitimate attribution (sans State involvement) for one's creative output is certainly a worthwhile quest.

As a libertarian I wouldn't support anything more restrictive than Free Cultural Works, as anything beyond boils down to asserting a property claim on information itself. Belief in copyright enforcement is the norm in the entertainment industry, but that's for the simple utilitarian reason that it generally enables them to maximize the amount of profit milked from each investment. In other words, protectionism.

That's not to say a artist/creator should give everyone the blueprint to his success, but just that they can't "own" any of the intangible things they necessarily communicate to others by revealing their works.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,984 Posts
Points 89,720
Reply
Wheylous replied on Tue, Oct 30 2012 10:27 AM

I've heard Copyleft is better.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap