So I don’t really think LvMI is totally hypocritical when it comes to IP, but there is this little exchange:
This guys conception of property and IP is all wrong but his exchange with Tucker, if true, is a bit startling.
Add to this that at the bottom of the daily’s it says you may repost so long as you give credit to the author…UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY!
If I want to repost the article verbatim, isn’t this my right? What if I don’t credit the author? Are they going to sue me? It doesnt say, “we ask out of respect that you do but you don’t have to credit the author.” It is a condition on the repost.
If people don’t state attribution, then there is a danger of down the line what was originally their ‘own’ piece of text to be regarded by someone else as ‘theirs’. In others words, for ambiguity to arise about the ‘ownership’ of LvMI. Under that ambiguity there is the risk of LvMI themselves being sued. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the expectency is to lose such a case, but being engaged in a legal battle is itself a threat (time and money waster).
That is a good reason to give credit under our current legal system, to keep clarity about that information that some people are trying to keep free.
ok so that explains why the require that you give credit but what about tuckers response to the EPJ’s writer requesting to publish Mises book which the Mises university has a “copyright” over. Is there some other party they share the cpyright with who does not want it to be published or something, tying their hands?
It is not that the LvMI requires, but rather that the state requires it; otherwise, there is the risk that someone else will claim copyright and, thus, block the publication of the work.
There is another thread on this topic. Maybe JJ can dig it up.
In some cases the LvMI doesn’t have the full copyright, but in other cases they do and in those cases they make sure to publish it under creative commons attribution. I have seen a number of books being reprinted by other people, based on previous LvMI publications (please correct me if I’m wrong).
See for example: http://www.largeprintliberty.com/ , which states at the bottom of their pages: ‘Books based on works published primarily by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, using CreateSpace’.
Also: stating “copyright of XXXX, year YYYY” is simply stating who the copyright owner is (which is automatically granted by the state and not reversible).
Wenzel in this case is trolling and Tucker knew it. Wenzel wasn’t actually interested in publishing anything (it seems to me from a quick glance at that page).
