A quick review, and a note regarding Creative Commons
I just finished reading The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey - Commentary Edition and am in love. Never so simply and completely have I found a reference to clearly explain the fundamental flaw of big government. I was amazed right up to the last word of the last chapter that there was nothing that struck me as a contradiction in my understanding of the philosophy of liberty demonstrated to leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. This article today gave me even greater respect for the book as a demonstration of what any "concise" material should strive for; leaving the reader with good questions. Jonathan Gullible strives to leave people podering the right questions, and does not wander attempting lead the reader to a particular collectivist conclusion encouraging any particular type of "regulation", but at the same time challenges certain "accepted" solutions many would like to convince you are no longer up for debate.
One challenge I am facing is my ability to share the book. I had the privelage of a friend lending it to me as a MUST READ, and I know sadly that if it were not for the book being loaned to me that it is unlikely that I would have read it. Further, the site speaks of difficulty getting it into libraries in the midst of encouraging teachers to use it in lesson plans. In addition to the principles described in the book, this leads me to believe that the author has an understanding of freedom of information as Thomas Jefferson and many others understood it. While I do not completely agree with Lawrence Lessig on all finer points of moderation regarding copyright law, he has been strongly proactive in bringing power to copyright holders that disagree with much of the abusive and strangling affects of current United States copyright law. He is working within the system to change it. As Microsoft and the Art of War taught us, Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Copyright law gives (mortally) eternal protection in all respect to creative works with an incredible power of force behind it to back it up, up to and including the right to REJECT such protection. I think this is why Lessig has commonly referred to creative Commons as a user interface to copyright law.
So I find it an incredible irony that for a book that so intelligently and passionately encourages us to think about the control we give to other people regarding our lives that the book author and/or publisher would take the route of such intellectual sloth and allow Disney et al and their well paid politicians to dictate the terms of distribution for their book with a "All Rights Reserved" copyright notice. It may be that you feel that the default level of protection and fair use to empower educators, and the ability for readers to clearly share the ideas they learn from the book are reasonably paced with their necessity to buy a number of copies such that the author and publisher make a fair amount of money to compensate for their contribution.
But I am skeptical that is actually the case.
I think a good demonstration of what it means to live up to the principles of Jonathan Gullible would be to take responsibility for communicating to the reader how the work may be used. Not to substitute one collective for another, but I would expect, at least, that a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License would be agreeable, though personally I would like to believe that if I desired to make my own fan art based on the stories of Jonathan Gullible that I would be encouraged happily to do so, but of course as it stands, that is quite strictly prohibited.
It is difficult to be too enthusiastic about Jonathan Gullible when the most I am free to do is loan the book to friends. The prospect of legal trouble were I to even attempt to promote the book, let alone ideas, with any kind of creative freedom is most disheartening and discouraging, but it is the message being sent in the current environment when you say "All Rights Reserved".
Update: Obviously someone is aware to some degree of Creative Commons, because the flash animation is licenced as such, though I question how much since it is only marked with the generic CC logo with a link to the Creative Commons web site, and does not communicate or link to any license in particular (CC-Public domain? CC-BY? CC-BY-NC-ND?).
Also, if there is a word limit on the forums, it would be useful to know ahead of time :)