
Uncopyright - brandonhsiao
http://zenhabits.net/uncopyright/
======
SeanLuke
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.

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
Why do you mention the notion of expiration? Wouldn't that apply instead to
old (say, pre-1923) works?

If anything, I believe the author's very right of placing a (recent) work in
the public domain is what is debated. Which... to me is beyond unfair and
absurd, but may very well be "the law"...

An interesting example appears in SQLite's copyright page [1]. They
acknowledge that, even though the code has been placed in the public domain,
some legal teams may advise their companies to purchase a license.

[1] <http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html>

~~~
11001
> An interesting example appears in SQLite's copyright page [1]. They
> acknowledge that, even though the code has been placed in the public domain,
> some legal teams may advise their companies to purchase a license.

This is very interesting. Can someone here please elaborate on it?

~~~
kijin
Although SQLite is supposed to be in the public domain, some jurisdictions
don't recognize public domain, or some corporations might have legal teams
that get very uncomfortable about the lack of an explicit license. In that
case, you can pay $1,000 for a piece of paper that says you have the right to
use SQLite. It keeps lawyers happy.

------
ishansharma
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.

~~~
greyman
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
Free and uncopyrighted are different things. The author didn't claim the books
were free.

~~~
adsr
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.

------
zokier
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
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

------
ap22213
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
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)

~~~
king_jester
Not everyone desires to be rich or make loads of crash on their works. Not
every desires attribution for works they make, either. For people consuming
content, kill your idols.

> 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)

I don't know this story, but issues around homelessness includes (lack of)
visibility of the work homeless folks produce, so it wouldn't surprise me if
such a story existed. Also, please don't call homeless people bums, it is
really insulting.

~~~
baby
as for the poor choice of words, I didn't know, I'm not native.

------
bediger4000
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?

~~~
acabal
In a practical sense these concepts only exist to the extent that the "owner"
is willing to enforce them. If this guy says he has uncopyrighted everything
and doesn't bother chasing after people for copyright violations, then there
you go.

On the other hand I believe an officially registered copyright is required to
merely go to court about a case, so if he says he's uncopyrighted everything,
then turns evil, registers a copyright, and starts suing, I imagine that
wouldn't really stand up so well to a judge in court.

Really though I find the entire concept of copyright and intellectual
"property" to be pretty ridiculous and baffling so maybe my interpretation is
wrong.

~~~
bediger4000
_I believe an officially registered copyright is required to merely go to
court about a case_

No, you can go to court about unregistered copyrights. The distinction is with
registration, you can sue for _statutory_ damages, instead of actual damages,
and that's where the real money is.

But again, I Am Not A Lawyer, and we always let lawyers speak about these
things at hundreds of dollars an hour, so you just have mis-information until
you pay someone to bring your particular case to trial.

------
jasonkostempski
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
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.

------
SagelyGuru
> 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.

------
vividmind
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>).

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!

------
RyanMcGreal
Related:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20091023030542/http://diveintomar...](http://web.archive.org/web/20091023030542/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/10/19/the-
point)

------
matterhorn
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.

------
unimpressive
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!

------
tjaerv
Reminds me of the Unlicense: <http://unlicense.org/>

------
a3_nm
> 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
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.

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

~~~
choult
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
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.

------
exodust
"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
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
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.

------
jpd750
hallelujah!!!

