There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010)

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by aeoleonn on Friday April 16, 2021 @01:45AM (#26829983)

I wonder how the author would feel about me copying & pasting their article to a few different websites (such as Medium.com), and then collecting both the financial proceeds & the credit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by JimDabell on Friday April 16, 2021 @01:59AM (#26830068)

At the bottom of the page:

> To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to C4SIF. This work is published from: United States. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by foobarbecue on Friday April 16, 2021 @01:48AM (#26830011)

Seems quite clear that the author would encourage that and be glad of it. There's a CC0 license at the bottom.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by warkdarrior on Friday April 16, 2021 @02:03AM (#26830091)

Apparently the license the author chose requires attribution. I am assuming that their stance against IP rights means that they are willing to forego attribution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by ben-schaaf on Friday April 16, 2021 @02:09AM (#26830147)

CC0 doesn't require attribution, it's effectively public domain.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There Are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property (2010) by aeoleonn on Friday April 16, 2021 @01:38PM (#26836876)

lol @ three downvotes for asking a question relevant to the article

Ahh HN & tech world, so many snowflakes

[ Parent | on HN ]