OK - badly phrase. Noam does not ENFORCE his copyrights. Which in practice is the same as not having a copyright.
>
> In which case, who is bitching about it?
A speech or some work of Noam's was used without his permission by a holocaust denier. We are bitching about the claim that Noam purposely wrote an introducition for the book. What happened was that , as I said it was used without permission. Noam had no way of knowing until afterwords - because it was in France and a fairly obscure book. He chose not to sue because he is a free speech absoluteist. I note that he also does not sue for libel or slander , something that is taken advantage of a great deal.