Interesting that Platte County R-3 decided to not proceed at this time with plans to add Pre K to their curriculum as the public needs "further education" on the subject after review of their most recent survey. One week after this press release, like clockwork Sly James sends in a letter to your paper listing in great detail the need for Pre K in the school systems. I agree with Mr. James, kids do learn better if they are taught from an earlier age than kindergarten, but why stop there?
They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: But now that the Internet has given us a world without distribution costs, it no longer makes any sense to restrict sharing in order to pay for centralized distribution. Abandoning copyright is now not only possible, but desirable.
Both artists and audiences would benefit, financially and aesthetically.
And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been. None of this will happen, however, if the industry has its way. Even today, they continue to campaign for ever stronger laws against sharing, for international treaties that compel all nations to conform to the copyright policies of the strictest, and most of all to make sure the public never asks exactly who this system is meant to help.
And by positioning the issue as a contest between the Beleaguered Artist, who supposedly needs copyright to pay the rent, and The Unthinking Masses, who would rather copy a song or a story off the Internet than pay a fair price, the industry has been astonishingly successful.
Yet a close look at history shows that copyright has never been a major factor in allowing creativity to flourish. Copyright is an outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in sixteenth-century England. There was no uprising of authors suddenly demanding the right to prevent other people from copying their works; far from viewing copying as theft, authors generally regarded it as flattery.
The bulk of creative work has always depended, then and now, on a diversity of funding sources: The introduction of copyright did not change this situation. Although the industry would like us to believe that prohibiting sharing is somehow related to enabling artists to make a living, their claim does not stand up to even mild scrutiny.
For the vast majority of artists, copyright brings no economic benefits.
Not coincidentally, these stars are who the industry always holds up as examples of the benefits of copyright.
But to treat this small group as representative would be to confuse marketing with reality. That is why the stereotype of the impoverished artist remains alive and well after three hundred years.
The first copyright law was a censorship law. It was not about protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce new works. So energizing, in fact, that the English government grew concerned about too many works being produced, not too few.
The new technology was making seditious reading material widely available for the first time, and the government urgently needed to control the flood of printed matter, censorship being as legitimate an administrative function then as building roads.
The method the government chose was to establish a guild of private-sector censors, the London Company of Stationers, whose profits would depend on how well they performed their function. The Stationers were granted a royal monopoly over all printing in England, old works as well as new, in return for keeping a strict eye on what was printed.
Their charter gave them not only exclusive right to print, but also the right to search out and confiscate unauthorized presses and books, and even to burn illegally printed books. The system was quite openly designed to serve booksellers and the government, not authors.
This was not simply the latest manifestation of some pre-existing form of copyright. People routinely printed works they admired when they had the chance, an activity which is responsible for the survival of many of those works to the present day.
One could, of course, be enjoined from distributing a specific document because of its potentially libelous effect, or because it was a private communication, or because the government considered it dangerous and seditious.
But these reasons are about public safety or damage to reputation, not about property ownership. There had also been, in some cases, special privileges then called "patents" allowing exclusive printing of certain types of books. But until the Company of Stationers, there had not been a blanket injunction against printing in general, nor a conception of copyright as a legal property that could be owned by a private party.
For about a century and a third, this partnership worked well for the government and for the Stationers. The Stationers profited from their monopoly, and through the Stationers, the government exercised control over the spread of information.
This meant that printing would return to its former anarchical state, and was of course a direct economic threat to the members of the Company of Stationers, accustomed as they were to having exclusive license to manufacture books.
Dissolution of the monopoly might have been good news for long-suppressed authors and independent printers, but it spelled disaster for the Stationers, and they quickly crafted a strategy to retain their position in the newly liberal political climate.
The Stationers based their strategy on a crucial realization, one that has stayed with publishing conglomerates ever since: Writing a book requires only pen, paper, and time.
But distributing a book requires printing presses, transportation networks, and an up-front investment in materials and typesetting. Their strategy used this fact to maximum advantage.“DID HITLER WANT WAR?” asks the internationally renowned author and political analyst, Pat Buchanan, in his recent book, “Hitler And The Unnecessary War.” Buchanan answers his own question with a definitive “No” — proving with documented facts that Hitler tried every possible means to.
The first copyright law was a censorship law. It was not about protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce new works. Authors' rights were in little danger in sixteenth-century England, and the recent arrival of the printing press (the world's first copying machine) was if anything energizing to writers.
Social Studies help for American History, Economics and AP Government. There are class notes, numerous Supreme Court case summaries and information on how to write a research paper inside. This page contains summaries of frequently cited First Amendment cases. Arranged by topic, they cover case law issued by a variety of courts: the Supreme Court of the United States, the Court of Appeals of different Federal circuits, the District Court of several Federal districts, as well as the highest court of several states and particular appellate .
History of publishing - Newspaper publishing: “A community needs news,” said the British author Dame Rebecca West, “for the same reason that a man needs eyes.
It has to see where it is going.” For William Randolph Hearst, one of America’s most important newspaper publishers, news was “what someone wants to stop you [from] printing: all .
Major platform launches, announcements, and acquisitions (See the appendix for fuller list.) The frequency and type of publishing related developments among platforms has accelerated over time as platforms compete to meet the needs of as many publishers as possible.