Now with Stuff and Things!
A blog by Peter Fein.
The views expressed here do not represent my past, present or future employers, collectives, family, nation-state or houseplants. They are mine alone. Who's else would they be?
This post was import from an earlier version of this blog. Original here.
Please Pirate Explained
Intellectual Unproperty or Transmedial Xerocracy can be Fun
Please Pirate is an alternative to copyright. It goes like this:
I, Peter Fein, the author of the work "Please Pirate Explained Blog Post" (2010), irrevocably renounce all current and future legal rights to the work in any medium whatsoever.
I stand behind the merit of the work, but disclaim all liability for it under law.
I encourage you, the audience, to share, copy, distribute, perform, remix, mash up, interpret, excerpt, translate, and otherwise enjoy and use the work as you will.
I request that you acknowledge my authorship.
Clear and simple. Imagine if I tried to include the EIGHTEEN KILOBYTE Creative Commons license instead? Horrors. I'd lose the few readers I imagine I have.
These comments were imported from an earlier version of this blog.
But is your license legally sound? Because if not, it offers the user no legal protection.
For example, if it was a song, I wouldn't be able to use it in a play, because the theaters require me to have a legal license to use others' works.
Just sounds like the simplified BSD license to me.
You can argue that CC-BY-SA (or whatever) codes are shorter than 18K, but on the text itself, I think you'd probably have to tidy up the contradiction between renouncing your rights and then requesting stuff from the recipients while disclaiming other stuff. The reason why you'd do the latter is in case the notion of the public domain does not exist in a particular jurisdiction, and where you apparently can't renounce authorship in a watertight fashion: it's the legal plan B.
It's also very unfortunate that you use the term "pirate", even though I imagine that you may be "riffing" off popular misuse of the term by large corporations and associated industry organisations.
@AP2: I've talked to 3 different copyright/IP lawyers and they all agreed that the license would have it's intended effect. As for needing a license, you may choose any license you like.
@J: it's inspired by BSD, yes, but without any legal force.
@Paul: if a particular country's courts are unable to reconcile ¶P with their IP system, I'd suggest that's their problem. The intent is pretty clear. As for the use of term "pirate", yes, it's riffing. The confusion here originates in the phrase "intellectual property" as far as I'm concerned. There's no such legal concept.