Economics Questions

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Wheylous — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:27:36 GMT

I've heard Copyleft is better.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Groucho — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:03:12 GMT

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.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:43:34 GMT

I personally like Murray Rothbard's suggestion of contracts.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:41:35 GMT

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.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:35:00 GMT

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

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:22:15 GMT

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.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:18:19 GMT

I'd use noncommercial for mine.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:15:02 GMT

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 (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.

Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.

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 (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.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:13:57 GMT

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 (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.

Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.

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 (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.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:09:00 GMT

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 (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.

Noncommercial (nc) Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.

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 (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.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:06:02 GMT

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

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

Wheylous — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:05:03 GMT

36 minute bump? Nice.

Re: Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:24:45 GMT

Bump. Anyone?

Creative Commons in the Anarcho-capitalistic view

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:48:36 GMT

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?

	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.
	Noncommercial (nc)	Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes.
	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 (sa)	Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.)