4 ms·

> At this point I'm inclined to ask-- what would a cypherpunk not do? I.e., let's remove crypto and magically-dev'ing-ourselves-out-of-holes from the equation.

> At this point I'm inclined to ask-- what would a cypherpunk not do? I.e., let's remove crypto and magically-dev'ing-ourselves-out-of-holes from the equation. One reasonable thing I can suggest that everyone can do at the local level is to support your local library and any funding millages for them. As someone said, "If libraries were proposed afresh today, the copyright lobby would immediately shut them down and sue them". So it seems like a reasonable way to encourage archival of materials on a local level. Going beyond that, I guess you could ask to talk to librarians at your local library about promoting open-access materials? I feel like they are much more likely to know about fair-use cases and methods and their intersection with copyright compared to the average reader here.

eternalban 4y ago
> As someone said, "If libraries were proposed afresh today, the copyright lobby would immediately shut them down and sue them" This sounded somewhat reasonable so I did a quick search for history of libraries and copyrights laws in US. Apparently Ben Franklin started one of the first in the "egalitarian colonies" while a bit later the Continental Congress resolved that "nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Colonial_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_th... And somehow we have both the laws and the libraries. And this site [below] is claiming that there are "unique provisions" to protect all sorts of knowledge repositories, ranging from "libraries, archives and museums under copyright acts in the U.S. and around the world". https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-provisions-for-libraries/ https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-provisions-for-libra... So that "someone"'s statement turns out to be merely a device to cast shade on the idea of copyright laws.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  If you look at the history around this - I think you're fairly confused. You've picked some random quotes - but modern copyright law essentially started in England in 1710 with the Statute of Anne. Some background context - Prior to 1710, there was a legal monopoly over publishing held by the Stationers Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Statione...). They were the only entity that could publish manuscripts and newspapers in England legally. Authors themselves had no such rights - Instead they would be forced to sell their manuscripts and maps to members of the Stationers Company for a one time fee, and the Stationers Company then retained a perpetual copyright on them. --- So when you see the quote "Nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study"... you need to understand that in this context they mean very clearly that author's work should be theirs - and that the copyright shouldn't go to a company who profits because of a monopoly agreement with the crown. They weren't really saying "Copyright laws are a good thing" they were saying "Copyright should remain in the hands of the author - not be forcibly removed by the crown". Further - and this is IMPORTANT - they decided that 14 years was plenty of time for a copyright. There should be no "perpetual copyright" like what was granted to the Stationers. --- And yet.... here we are in 2022, with a situation that actually looks fairly similar to the 1500s. Large publishing companies control nearly all successful commercial publications. They've lobbied the government to increase the duration of those copyrights and trademarks to be nearly "perpetual" for all meaningful purposes, and they usually pay authors a one time fee for those perpetual copyrights. If anything - I'd argue that modern copyright laws as they exist and are enforced today are a complete sabotage of the intent of those men you're quoting.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    That is a pure straw man retort. I was clearly using US (not European) jurisdiction. Also I didn’t parse that statement, merely showed that both topics were in development and discussion in tandem, in US. Finally, the existence of special provisions for libraries, etc. All of which shows that the two have somehow coexisted, and that quote of yours is hyperbole.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      The US law is almost entirely based on the same set of laws that originated in 1710 with the Statute of Anne (down to literally the same 14 period). The scope has been modified and changed (mostly in favor of extending the rights of copyright holders, and the duration of the copyright). The two aren't co-existing. Modern copyright law doesn't actually say jack shit about libraries except for a minor footnote that allows libraries limited ability to "preserve" works that are no longer available for sale, even if they are within their period of copyright. Libraries operate almost entirely under the doctrine of first sale... which is also under attack in the US right now. --- Have a good one, I don't think you have enough context on the subject to be worth discussing it with further.

eternalban 4y ago

> As someone said, "If libraries were proposed afresh today, the copyright lobby would immediately shut them down and sue them" This sounded somewhat reasonable so I did a quick search for history of libraries and copyrights laws in US. Apparently Ben Franklin started one of the first in the "egalitarian colonies" while a bit later the Continental Congress resolved that "nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Colonial_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_th... And somehow we have both the laws and the libraries. And this site [below] is claiming that there are "unique provisions" to protect all sorts of knowledge repositories, ranging from "libraries, archives and museums under copyright acts in the U.S. and around the world". https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-provisions-for-libraries/ https://www.copyrightlaws.com/copyright-provisions-for-libra... So that "someone"'s statement turns out to be merely a device to cast shade on the idea of copyright laws.

horsawlarway 4y ago
If you look at the history around this - I think you're fairly confused. You've picked some random quotes - but modern copyright law essentially started in England in 1710 with the Statute of Anne. Some background context - Prior to 1710, there was a legal monopoly over publishing held by the Stationers Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newspaper_Makers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Statione...). They were the only entity that could publish manuscripts and newspapers in England legally. Authors themselves had no such rights - Instead they would be forced to sell their manuscripts and maps to members of the Stationers Company for a one time fee, and the Stationers Company then retained a perpetual copyright on them. --- So when you see the quote "Nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study"... you need to understand that in this context they mean very clearly that author's work should be theirs - and that the copyright shouldn't go to a company who profits because of a monopoly agreement with the crown. They weren't really saying "Copyright laws are a good thing" they were saying "Copyright should remain in the hands of the author - not be forcibly removed by the crown". Further - and this is IMPORTANT - they decided that 14 years was plenty of time for a copyright. There should be no "perpetual copyright" like what was granted to the Stationers. --- And yet.... here we are in 2022, with a situation that actually looks fairly similar to the 1500s. Large publishing companies control nearly all successful commercial publications. They've lobbied the government to increase the duration of those copyrights and trademarks to be nearly "perpetual" for all meaningful purposes, and they usually pay authors a one time fee for those perpetual copyrights. If anything - I'd argue that modern copyright laws as they exist and are enforced today are a complete sabotage of the intent of those men you're quoting.
- eternalban 4y ago
  That is a pure straw man retort. I was clearly using US (not European) jurisdiction. Also I didn’t parse that statement, merely showed that both topics were in development and discussion in tandem, in US. Finally, the existence of special provisions for libraries, etc. All of which shows that the two have somehow coexisted, and that quote of yours is hyperbole.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    The US law is almost entirely based on the same set of laws that originated in 1710 with the Statute of Anne (down to literally the same 14 period). The scope has been modified and changed (mostly in favor of extending the rights of copyright holders, and the duration of the copyright). The two aren't co-existing. Modern copyright law doesn't actually say jack shit about libraries except for a minor footnote that allows libraries limited ability to "preserve" works that are no longer available for sale, even if they are within their period of copyright. Libraries operate almost entirely under the doctrine of first sale... which is also under attack in the US right now. --- Have a good one, I don't think you have enough context on the subject to be worth discussing it with further.