Comments on: If you’re ONLY in it for the money …

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:44:35 +0000

Good post Henry, but it was the US Copyright legislation of 1790 that granted printers a monopoly - which only really benefits them - it helps protect authors' exclusive right to their writings only indirectly. The US Constitution of 1787 could only recognise natural rights, and would certainly never have sanctioned a monopoly or any other inegalitarian privilege - even if it could. An author's exclusive right to their writings should have been protected directly by legislation as strongly as anyone's exclusive right to their material property. As we now recognise, printers should never have been granted a reproduction monopoly - copyright as such should never have been legislated. It is sad that enough people didn't recognise that it was actually unconstitutional in the first place, but it's only when people start noticing their liberty has been suspended to privilege the publishing industry that illiberal laws are eventually repealed. Mike Masnick asked me to explain what the constitution did mean by 'exclusive right' if it didn't and couldn't have meant a monopoly. So, here's the blog article I wrote in reply: An Author's Exclusive Right.

By: hackers/pirates of the world unite

hackers/pirates of the world unite — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:44:21 +0000

its like this summed up , if i give you somehting im not expecting to get something back thats how it should work
and if they had 5 year maxes everywhere YOU’D be surprised how much better crap would be , why? cause lazy actors and lazy musicians don’t get money.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:39:32 +0000

Excellent post, Henry!
The real nature and purpose of the idea of copyright has got to be the hardest thing to help some people understand.
It’s time to strip away the effects of what years of “conditioning” have done to the truth in all of this.