When I release and publish code, I typically make it Free Software by copyrighting it and applying a license (usually GNU GPL).  In cases of smaller code bases or scripts I write, I don't bother to license them.  They are generally used as small tools or code snippets.

One choice is to release it as Public Domain.  Being in the public domain is not a license.  It means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. However, I want to retain copyrights but allow others the freedom to do anything.  This is based on trust of the author, not a license or an any official law speak.

To make the point clear that I don't care, I adapted Woody Guthrie's Copyright notice to apply to my software.

My new Copyright Notice for unlicensed code:

---

Copyright (c) 2008, Corey Goldberg (corey@goldb.org)

"This code is Copyrighted, and anybody caught usin' it without my permission, will be mighty good friends of mine, cause I don't give a dern.  Run it.  Study it.  Modify it.  Improve it.  Distribute it.  Yodel it.  I wrote it, that's all I wanted to do."

---

Feel free to use this notice on any software you publish, cause I don't give a dern.

Sometimes music is treated as art, not as a vehicle for hoarding money and restricting consumers.

This is exemplified by the copyright policies of certain performers.  Here are my favorite policies from some influential acts:

Grateful Dead's Mp3 Policy:

"The Grateful Dead and our managing organizations have long encouraged the purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts and those of our individual members. That a new medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard."

Woody Guthrie's Standard Copyright Notice:

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do."

Earlier this week, SCO finally lost the infamous Linux copyright infringement case against IBM.  The judge ruled Unix copyrights belong to Novell, not SCO.  A lot of people have forgotten about this case; but when it was originally filed, it really spooked a lot of Free software developers and Linux advocates.

After the ruling, Wall Street punished SCO's stock price accordingly.

5-Day stock price chart for SCOX:

Ouch.  Decimated.  I'm actually surprised it didn't get hammered more... Time to short this rag?

I think most people have a very confused view of what copyrights are for.

As usual, Richard Stallman clarifies this in his simple pointed words:  Misinterpreting Copyright

Further clarification from Larry Lessig:  

"[There is] fallacy in any public policy argument that tries to suggest there is an economic harm from failing to extend the term of an existing copyright. The key is the distinction between social value and individual value."

Yes..  Social Value vs. Individual Value.
I especially love Lessig's quote here about the "tax" (yes, it is a social tax or trade-off) of extending copyrights:

"The work is already produced. No matter what we do today, Elvis is not going to produce any more recordings in 1957. So it is a tax that benefits some plainly, but benefits society not at all."