James Boyle's New Book Under CC License 80
An anonymous reader writes "James Boyle has released his new book, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (Yale University Press) under a Creative Commons License. It can be downloaded free or read online. There are chapters on Thomas Jefferson's views of IP, musical borrowing and the birth of soul, free software, and synthetic biology. Lessig is impressed. Doctorow says he is a law prof who writes like a comedian (is this a good thing?), and credits Boyle's first book for getting him involved in online rights."
Thomas Jefferson (Score:5, Insightful)
Philosophically Jefferson opposed slavery too ... but his slaves would tell you a different story.
Comedy of law (Score:5, Insightful)
a law prof who writes like a comedian (is this a good thing?)
I think so. The world of law is rich with ironies and absurdities. Unfortunately the people on the giving end are too invested in the system to see it, and the people on the receiving end are usually having a bad time, so the humor is rarely appreciated.
Prses? (Score:2, Insightful)
CC: It works bitches (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never heard of this guy. Never would have bothered to buy his book. But now that I read it online (for free). If it is engrossing enough, I would like to buy a hard copy, or anything tangible if its available in my country.
I would also tell my friends about this book and they would do the same, at least some of them would. PROFIT !!!
Re:Good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't we angry. Not a BoingBoing reader or terribly familiar with Doctorow myself but your vitriol seems mostly inspired by some personal vendetta than anything constructive.
Doctorow's education (or lack thereof) aside, he's free to make whatever point he wants. It's up to you to prove his lack of education in any way inhibits his ability to contribute to society. There have been many people who were never formally educated who have contributed greatly.
What -you- consider a publisher is irrelevant. He started his own company and got ISBNs for his books and apparently they're readily available. He's gone and done more than most loud-mouthed slashbots who whine about "teh evil corporations" and do nothing about it.
Hypocracy would only be the appropriate label if he decried the blind spamming of DMCA takedown notices... then went and did it himself and continued to decry the takedowns sent by others. Also, I don't think -he- can press charges, but I'm not up on how federal law works in that respect. If he can, then at worst I would chalk it up to apathy, before that, a lack of funds.
I don't know, but someone must've pissed in your coffee. You cite the fact that they mention she plays games and that's somehow a reason to deny her USC's conferrance of the title of "fellow"? Maybe you should go and talk to them, find out why they decided to grant them the titles. You may not like it, but you'd at least disagree while being informed instead of ranting based on the fact that they mentioned two GAMES. Oh no, GAMES.
Re:CC: It works bitches (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Comedy of law (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course comedy in law is a good thing! Ask Phoenix Wright!
Objection!
If you want to bring in those sorts of statements, I'm afraid you'll need some COMPELLING EVIDENCE!
Re:Comedy of law (Score:2, Insightful)
I think so. The world of law is rich with ironies and absurdities. Unfortunately the people on the giving end are too invested in the system to see it, and the people on the receiving end are usually having a bad time, so the humor is rarely appreciated.
Yes... a law prof writing like a comedian is great.
Universities need to find more law profs like that, and make an intro to law by such a prof mandatory for all majors, even more important than English 101.
Copyright Shows Why Capitalism Doesn't WORK (Score:4, Insightful)
The idealism of copyright is that people want stuff that is non-rivalrous (you can copy it, I can copy it, so apparently no-one will ever pay for more than one copy). To encourage "artists" to create the stuff that people want, you give them exclusive rights to make copies, and magically the non-rivalrous good becomes a rivalrous good and now the market system works and the people get what they want.
The thing is, people don't know what they want. If we're talking about the market for potatoes, sure, we all know a good potato from a bad one, but we're not. We're talking about "artistic" goods. If the people knew what they wanted, they'd just make it themselves. So how do they decide what is "art" and what is not? Why, marketing of course. The "artists" just pump out crap and the people consume.
Compare this to the old patronage system. You go to an artist, you say "I want X" and when they make Y you say, "no, I want X" and you keep saying it until you get X. If the artist can't give you X, you go find an artist who can. That is a market.