James Boyle's New Book Under CC License

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

Philosophically Jefferson opposed slavery too ... but his slaves would tell you a different story.

Re:

I'm not one to shun a history lesson, but I think the important thing here is that acknowledgment that the work of brilliant people should be free to all.

Keep charging for Hollywood crap, I don't care. But if you're truly bright, you'll want the world to know what you think.

It would also behoove Hollywood et al. to adopt this model, as it substantially augments the agent's influence in the given domain, but hey, they'll learn that the hard way, I guess.

Re:

Philosophically Al Gore opposed climate change... but his electricity bill would tell you a different story.

But what the hell, he's done more to fight climate change than I ever have. I've heard Jefferson did quite a good job over slavery too.

Comedy of law

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.

Re:Comedy of law

I don't have the book on hand, but Bill Bryson put it well towards the start of "A Short History of Nearly Everything" where he blames the dry and boring nature of science textbooks and the authors need to put questions at the end of every chapter for squashing his interest in science. He then goes on to praise scientific authors who can make their work informative and entertaining.

I agree wholeheartedly. Make an otherwise dry subject funny and interesting and it becomes more memorable and therefore easier to learn.

To demonstrate my point, I have deliberately made this post dry and dull. You will notice that within a week you will have forgotten it entirely.

Re:Comedy of law

Resnick, Halliday and Walker (Fundamentals of Physics) did a great job with this. I loved how each chapter would start with a story and a question formed from that. For example, Electromagnetics, I think, started with telling how Jimi Hendrix fiddled with his guitar pickups to change the kind of sound he got.

Pretty much one of the best Physics textbooks I had when in high school.

Re:Comedy of law

Richard Feynman's Lectures on Physics are good in that regard, too. For example, he starts his lecture on planetary motion by describing the medieval myth that planets were pushed around by invisible angels. He finishes by pointing out that because we don't really understand what gravity is, all we've really done is turn the invisible angel through 90 degrees and say how hard it pushes.

Re:

Of course comedy in law is a good thing! Ask Phoenix Wright!

Re:

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.

Prses?

Yale University Prses? are all /.'s editors lacking in both mechanical spellchecking and literacy simultaneously?

Oh, those editors.

Tagged "oheditors."

Re:

It's shorthand for parses - as in "does not parse".

CC: It works bitches

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:

In the case of books I wouldn't be surprised to see it work like that since there is a notable difference between electronic text and reading out of a book; but for a medium where the CC version and the paid version are essentially the same (ex: music... at least in the case of mp3) I don't see it working as idealistically as that. But I guess that is why you don't see it much in those types of media.

Good thing?

Doctorow says he is a law prof who writes like a comedian(Is that a good thing?)

No, it's a meaningless thing given that Doctorow has little to no education, and is an author who has never been of sufficient caliber to get the attention of a publisher (and no, I do not count a company that publishes Halo fanfiction "books" to be a publisher.)

He's also a hypocritical little shit [arstechnica.com]; we never did see him press charges against the SFWA for filing illegal DMCA notices, now did we? Funny how he didn't get all

Mod parent up

We shouldn't celebrate mediocrity just because it offers some sound bites for our use, but all too often in the Slashdot community we either do that, or elevate people like Lessig who, in fact, pursue goals different from what we'd like to see. Would that there were more critical voices of this Slashdot establishment figures.

Re:Good thing?

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.

I do not count a company that publishes Halo fanfiction "books" to be a publisher.

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.

He's also a hypocritical little shit

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.

What drugs did she put in their water?

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:

He's also a hypocritical little shit; we never did see him press charges against the SFWA for filing illegal DMCA notices, now did we? Funny how he didn't get all up in their grill, but he's happy to incite riots among his BoingBoing readers when it doesn't involve him?

It is because they were not "illegal DMCA notices" they were simple false. The DMCA only requires that the filer "believe" that the DMCA notice is justified, and showing that the SFWA's lawyers did not "believe" their DMCA notices were legit is essentially impossible. That's why no one, absolutely no one, has been taken to court for filing false DMCA notices. The law is firmly stacked in the favor of those issuing the notices, regardless of whether the filings are valid or not.

Re:

(and no, I do not count a company that publishes Halo fanfiction "books" to be a publisher.)

You mean Tor, the publishing company that puts out Vernor Vinge, Charlie Stross, Ken MacLeod, Robert Charles Wilson, John Scalzi, the Wheel of Time, and Malazan in addition to Doctorow's latest book?

There are many reasons to think Doctorow is an intellectual lightweight, wannabe Jacobin, and all-around poseur, but this ain't it.

Distribution "rights" are immoral.

once it is on the internet it is difficult to have artistic control, however the producer has the rights to be credited for its creation. The one that is not responsible for the creation of the product that is put up on the internet is the thief if it is put up there without the creator's permission.

Taking an idea from someone else and giving it away is thievery, but once an idea has been sold it is no longer under the control if its author.

All of academia and our modern society is based on both the

Comedians need to write more books

Doctorow says he is a law prof who writes like a comedian (is this a good thing?)

Yes. Comedians are more thoughtful than is often apparent. They are logical and intelligent and perceptive. You can't be dumb and (deliberately) funny. It actually takes intelligence and a great deal of work to be as (deliberately) funny as Dan Quayle [wikipedia.org] for example. Comedians often derive their humour from pointing out the incongruities that most other people overlook. If all of us could be comedians then the world would be a far more intelligent (and funnier) place to live.

Re:

You can't be dumb and (deliberately) funny.

A certain drooling moron who repeatedly shouts "GIT-R-DONE!" would seem to offer evidence against your assertion.

Copyright Shows Why Capitalism Doesn't WORK

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.

License: by-nc-sa

Specifically, the license is the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Noncommercial mean it is not entirely free, but it is still one of the more free cc licenses. Just saying that something is cc-licenses means almost nothing, there are cc licenses that give very little freedom.

How about a "download with donation" option

The way this is set up, you can either download the file for free, or buy the book (hardcover). I don't want a book, I want a file -- but I also want to financially support the author and his publisher.

How about a "download with donation" option, with a 50/50 split to the author and the publisher? (For those who might object to giving the publisher anything, just ask any author how much work goes into getting a book ready for publication. Splitting the donation is plenty fair, I can assure you.)