[Upd-discuss] Christian Engstrom on Copyright Law and Online Freedom

[Michael S. Hart]

Some serious errors below:

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Glen Stark wrote:

> > Even if it were possible to completely prevent people from sharing
> > without surveillance, through some kind of DRM system, it would be
> > wrong to do so.  Not wrong because of secondary consequences, but
> >wrong because the goal is wrong.  Sharing is good!
>
> Hmm.  I thought Engstroem did a good job pointing out that the goal is
> wrong:  "Technology opens up possibilities; copyright law shuts them down.
> This was never the intent.  Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not
> restrict it.

No. . .think about why Queen Anne was the only monarch weak enough
to give The Stationers their proposed copyright after 250 years of
this not happening.  Anne was so weak she needed censorship and it
was an unholy copyright alliance between Anne and The Stationers.

THIS WAS THE INTENT!

"Encourge culture" was just a smokescreen and has continued to be.

"Restrict culture" was obvious as the number of books on the shelf
dropped from 6,000 to 600 literally overnight.

"Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it."

Do not believe the propaganda The Stationers and their successors,
all the way to WIPO, tell you. . .their purpose is 99% one sided.



mh