The deep history of copyright from Europe begins in an extension of feudal
power to the new post-Gutenberg publishing industry (publishing monopoly in
return for monarchal censorship power).  But in England in the 1600 there
was a rebellion against the maximalist stance (monopoly of the Stationers
Company -- John Locke was part of the revolt) and it was reframed in the
Statute of Anne to derive from the authors (not the editors/publishers --
sort of a "grand compromise").  The US version derives from the Anglo
version.  There was also a French version that focused even more on
authors' moral rights, but that can be overdone IMHO (more prone to
maximalist tendencies).  Anglo-American tradition is more utilitarian, up
until the last couple decades.

In some sense we have returned to the more feudal beginnings, before the
revolt of the Enlightenment.  Back in 2005 Robin introduced me to a great
book describing current status: 'Information Feudalism' by Peter Drahos
with John Braithwaite.  Great read for understanding what we're up against,
still.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 9:43 AM -0500 1/28/13, Carl Smith wrote:
>My thoughts on copy rights.
>
>It is my belief that copy rights and patents were originally created to
>promote the person who personally was the creator of such to financially
>promote further creation.  We have gone far beyond that goal today.  The
>actual creator is often not the recipient of that benefit.  Further it was
>for commercial distribution and never for the monopoly of knowledge.  How
>can this be fixed?
>
>Lou
>
>On 1/28/2013 3:01 AM, Andrei Barburas wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>Am I the only one who has the impression that sometimes the Governments
>>give ideas to the potential hackers?
>>
>>If you notice, usually those claims and allegations regarding the "cyber
>>world", come from individuals/government representatives that have no
>>"IT" background. Napolitano has a law background, which makes me believe
>>that this might be another case for copyright holders rather than a
>>safety and anti terrorism case.
>>
>>I hope I am wrong though...
>>
>>Yours,
>>
>>
>>
>>Andrei Barburas
>>
>>Community Relations Services Officer
>>
>>
>>
>>International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)
>>
>>P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands
>>
>>NPOC, ICANN member
>>
>>
>>Mobile: +31 62 928 2879
>>
>>Phone: +31 70 311 7311
>>Fax: +31 70 311 7322
>>Website: <http://www.iicd.org/>www.iicd.org
>>
>>
>>
>>People   ICT   Development
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Carl Smith
>><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>Homeland Security's Napolitano invokes 9/11 to push for CISPA 2.0
>>
>>Link
>><https://rt.com/usa/news/napolitano-us-cyber-attack-761/>https://rt.com/usa/news/napolitano-us-cyber-attack-761/
>>
>>Lou