>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 start

>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.