3 ms·

>Using Wikipedia as an authoritative source... Which is why you can check the references. When the article linked above about copyright is clearly coming from

>Using Wikipedia as an authoritative source... Which is why you can check the references. When the article linked above about copyright is clearly coming from an anti-copyright source, and does not mention multiple important things Wikipedia does, I think any intelligent person realizes the Wikipedia source is more credible. As to overall accuracy of Wikipedia, many, many studies show it is quite accurate. Google and read the evidence. >You claim that the US copyright law was started by authors guild It's not my claim - Wikipedia sourced it. Since you don't like it, here [3] are some details with names and dates you can check, and here [4] is a paper titled "The Anti-Monopoly Origins of the Patent and Copyright Clause" with significant details. >three states had already enacted copyright statutes prior to the Continental Congress resolution "The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War." [1] And.... "Twelve states passed copyright laws prior to the work of the Continental Congress. Delaware chose not to pass a copyright law." [2] Here [2] is the text of the 1790 Copyright Act. It is completely about protecting author rights - every single section details this. The word author occurs 21 times in a page and a half. For example, (cutting out wordy clauses - go read the original if you doubt this) Section 1 - "the author...shall have the sole right ... of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending..." Section 2 - "any person .. without the consent of the author...shall forfeit all and every sheet and item.. and pay the sum of fifty cents for every sheet..." Section 6 - "any person .. who shall print ... without consent ... of the author.. shall be liable to suffer and pay ... all damages.." >the final text which focuses on the commercial aspects and not the rights of the authors I have no idea how you arrived at this statement. I just cited the law which clearly, in every section, enumerates authors rights. Care to cite this "final text" which does not? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 [2] http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf [3] http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/intellectualproperty/4.htm http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/intellectualproperty/4.htm [4] http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=facpubs http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

DannyBee 10y ago
"Which is why you can check the references. When the article linked above about copyright is clearly coming from an anti-copyright source, and does not mention multiple important things Wikipedia does, I think any intelligent person realizes the Wikipedia source is more credible. " You can also check the references from the article i cited. But apparently, those references are somehow wrong, and yours, somehow right, simply because they are cited by wikipedia? Would you care to point how they are wrong? Instead you simply say it's "100% inaccurate", because a few other law articles say something else. That is quite a claim! (Note, the ones Karl is citing in his article are in much larger law journals, books on copyright history, etc. The things Wikipedia is citing are mostly pretty niche) I think any intelligent person realizes wikipedia is mostly astroturfed these days, and also usually represents popular opinion on things, not accurate history.
- ChrisLomont 10y ago
  >You can also check the references from the article i cited. The references are correct. They leave out significant parts of the story, as I stated. You started with "Copyright law was created as a way to support a nascent publishing industry by granting it a monopoly. It was not created to help artists or whoever.". This is demonstrably false as shown above many times. >I think any intelligent person realizes wikipedia is mostly astroturfed these days, and also usually represents popular opinion on things, not accurate history Any intelligent person will look at the two sources, note differences, and note one has listed more evidence than the other. An intelligent person will also note one has a clear bias to present a certain viewpoint based on the site and single author. If there is still doubt, an intelligent person will investigate the extra evidence to ensure it's not simply made up. Then, when it is shown to be accurate, and that one source deliberately or accidentally left it out, the intelligent person will reverse his opinion as it was supplanted by more evidence. >Note, the ones Karl is citing in his article are in much larger law journals, books on copyright history, etc. The things Wikipedia is citing are mostly pretty niche This amuses me - Karl cites 4 sources (paper by Patterson, a book by Kaplan, and a book by Steinberg, and an online article by Schneier and Kelsey). Wikipedia cites 35 sources and 20 more for extra reading. The sources include over a dozen books from scholars top publishers (Harvard, Cambridge, Springer, more), and includes around two dozen authors, many of them fulltime copyright scholars. That you spin this into your claim "much larger law journals" (you mean the single paper in your references?) and Wikipedia being "niche" is astoundingly dishonest.

DannyBee 10y ago

"Which is why you can check the references. When the article linked above about copyright is clearly coming from an anti-copyright source, and does not mention multiple important things Wikipedia does, I think any intelligent person realizes the Wikipedia source is more credible. " You can also check the references from the article i cited. But apparently, those references are somehow wrong, and yours, somehow right, simply because they are cited by wikipedia? Would you care to point how they are wrong? Instead you simply say it's "100% inaccurate", because a few other law articles say something else. That is quite a claim! (Note, the ones Karl is citing in his article are in much larger law journals, books on copyright history, etc. The things Wikipedia is citing are mostly pretty niche) I think any intelligent person realizes wikipedia is mostly astroturfed these days, and also usually represents popular opinion on things, not accurate history.

ChrisLomont 10y ago
>You can also check the references from the article i cited. The references are correct. They leave out significant parts of the story, as I stated. You started with "Copyright law was created as a way to support a nascent publishing industry by granting it a monopoly. It was not created to help artists or whoever.". This is demonstrably false as shown above many times. >I think any intelligent person realizes wikipedia is mostly astroturfed these days, and also usually represents popular opinion on things, not accurate history Any intelligent person will look at the two sources, note differences, and note one has listed more evidence than the other. An intelligent person will also note one has a clear bias to present a certain viewpoint based on the site and single author. If there is still doubt, an intelligent person will investigate the extra evidence to ensure it's not simply made up. Then, when it is shown to be accurate, and that one source deliberately or accidentally left it out, the intelligent person will reverse his opinion as it was supplanted by more evidence. >Note, the ones Karl is citing in his article are in much larger law journals, books on copyright history, etc. The things Wikipedia is citing are mostly pretty niche This amuses me - Karl cites 4 sources (paper by Patterson, a book by Kaplan, and a book by Steinberg, and an online article by Schneier and Kelsey). Wikipedia cites 35 sources and 20 more for extra reading. The sources include over a dozen books from scholars top publishers (Harvard, Cambridge, Springer, more), and includes around two dozen authors, many of them fulltime copyright scholars. That you spin this into your claim "much larger law journals" (you mean the single paper in your references?) and Wikipedia being "niche" is astoundingly dishonest.