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?
Bump. Anyone?
36 minute bump? Nice.
What is it about this topic that makes people not want to respond?
Should be no problem in itself.
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.
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 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.
Me are trying to post but it wont show.
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 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.
I’d use noncommercial for mine.
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/
But what if I wanted to make money off of my work? What if, say, I had a video game developing company?
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.
I personally like Murray Rothbard’s suggestion of contracts.
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.
I’ve heard Copyleft is better.