BWS said:
> The problem is that's not how copyright works - it is (generally) all or nothing. You release it into public domain, or you don't.
-----------------------------------------
Actually, no. Every time a work is published, the copyright owner has made a bargain with the publisher that gives the publisher rights to use the work. Every work can be licensed, often in several ways, without endangering the copyright holder's rights.
I already covered this. Like I said "The only way to give up some rights and yet retain others is to enter into a legal contract"; it's also why I added the "generally" modifier. When you sell to a publisher you enter a legal contract, giving up certain rights in return for certain gratuities. My point was that it's all about the legal contracts (as opposed to the Benjamins

).
Publishers are not the devil and you do not make bargains with them, you sign legally binding documents that will be upheld in a court of law.
BWS said:
This is basically what copyright are for - to give an artist control over how the work is distributed.
Not exactly. That's what it's come to be used for, but it's not what it was really created to do. Copyright was intended to stop the rampant plaigarism that was robbing publishers and writers of a wage. It wasn't about giving an artist control over every detail, it was about making sure they got paid for their efforts.
Because it wasn't initially designed to be as complex and powerful as it has become, it's not really so black and white - we're dealing with a century of appendices, multiple international conventions, and so forth. Plus international copyright law is still not universally adopted - not all countries have signed the Berne Convention, and of the countries that haven't signed some have their own form of copyright laws and some don't. Even the UK and the US do not agree on some basic principles of copyright law.
The point of all this at any rate, is that copyright is not simply any one thing.
BWS said:
So it is completely proper for a copyright holder to *give away* some licensing rights while retaining all other rights.
If they do it in a way allowed for by copyright law, yes. If not, they risk giving up more than they intended - depending on which way the court finds when they attempt to sue someone.
BWS said:
It's the same deal you'd make with a publisher, but you're not charging money.
No, it's not. With a publisher you've explicitly signed a contract - this protects you as well as them. With the general public you have to write a licensing agreement for them to agree to (or use a service that has already done it for you - now possible thanks to Creative Commons). Most people don't bother.
Also, "but you're not charging money" is a much more powerful concept than people often allow for. For example, if you're not making any money off a work and you sue for damages... well it's hard to prove lost revenue. Money, as in most aspects of life, changes everything.
BWS said:
That free license does not give the licensee any additional rights to the work and does not affect the copyright holder's rights to it, either.
...if done properly. If that free licence is mishandled it can do exactly that. I was pretty clear in my first message that it didn't instantly open up a free-for-all, or cause people to throw away their rights.
Like I said, it's a legal quagmire. It's not as simple as just giving work away and telling people what you want to do with it. If you want to share your work in a non-commercial context the copyright law
is complicated - it's not designed to protect people who want to give away some rights and not others.
Copyright law was specifically written from a capitalist mindset. It also allows you to be completely philanthropic and give away your work (this was most likely intended to be used for works of a political or religious nature). Yes, there are ways to do more or less whatever you want with your own work and still be protected by copyright. No, they are not as simple as wishing it were such and so... which is what I said in the first place.