1,661 books
—
2,944 voters
“At the moment, everyone gets a copyright as soon as the work is written down or otherwise fixed, whether they want one or not.”
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
“The precursor of copyright law served to force the identification of the author so that he could be punished if he proved to be a heretic or a revolutionary”
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
“That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.”
―
―
“Given an area of law that legislators were happy to hand over to the affected industries and a technology that was both unfamiliar and threatening, the prospects for legislative insight were poor. Lawmakers were assured by lobbyists
a) that this was business as usual, that no dramatic changes were being made by the Green or White papers; or
b) that the technology presented a terrible menace to the American cultural industries, but that prompt and statesmanlike action would save the day; or
c) that layers of new property rights, new private enforcers of those rights, and technological control and surveillance measures were all needed in order to benefit consumers, who would now be able to “purchase culture by the sip rather than by the glass” in a pervasively monitored digital environment.
In practice, somewhat confusingly, these three arguments would often be combined. Legislators’ statements seemed to suggest that this was a routine Armageddon in which firm, decisive statesmanship was needed to preserve the digital status quo in a profoundly transformative and proconsumer way. Reading the congressional debates was likely to give one conceptual whiplash.
To make things worse, the press was—in 1995, at least—clueless about these issues. It was not that the newspapers were ignoring the Internet. They were paying attention—obsessive attention in some cases. But as far as the mainstream press was concerned, the story line on the Internet was sex: pornography, online predation, more pornography. The lowbrow press stopped there. To be fair, the highbrow press was also interested in Internet legal issues (the regulation of pornography, the regulation of online predation) and constitutional questions (the First Amendment protection of Internet pornography). Reporters were also asking questions about the social effect of the network (including, among other things, the threats posed by pornography and online predators).”
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
a) that this was business as usual, that no dramatic changes were being made by the Green or White papers; or
b) that the technology presented a terrible menace to the American cultural industries, but that prompt and statesmanlike action would save the day; or
c) that layers of new property rights, new private enforcers of those rights, and technological control and surveillance measures were all needed in order to benefit consumers, who would now be able to “purchase culture by the sip rather than by the glass” in a pervasively monitored digital environment.
In practice, somewhat confusingly, these three arguments would often be combined. Legislators’ statements seemed to suggest that this was a routine Armageddon in which firm, decisive statesmanship was needed to preserve the digital status quo in a profoundly transformative and proconsumer way. Reading the congressional debates was likely to give one conceptual whiplash.
To make things worse, the press was—in 1995, at least—clueless about these issues. It was not that the newspapers were ignoring the Internet. They were paying attention—obsessive attention in some cases. But as far as the mainstream press was concerned, the story line on the Internet was sex: pornography, online predation, more pornography. The lowbrow press stopped there. To be fair, the highbrow press was also interested in Internet legal issues (the regulation of pornography, the regulation of online predation) and constitutional questions (the First Amendment protection of Internet pornography). Reporters were also asking questions about the social effect of the network (including, among other things, the threats posed by pornography and online predators).”
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
“The history of patents includes a wealth of attempts to reward friends of the government and restrict or control dangerous technologies.”
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
― The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind
LAVA
— 6 members
— last activity May 16, 2011 07:23PM
Libertarian, Agorist, Voluntaryist & Anarch Authors & Publishers Association. LAVA was formed: To assist the membership with promoting their books an ...more
Pirates of Savannah...."Arrrrrrgghhhh"
— 152 members
— last activity Feb 01, 2012 08:00AM
This group is for any and all readers of the best swashbuckling, booty-gathering, sea-faring pirate adventure book known to man...Pirates of Savannah ...more
Goodreads Librarians Group
— 307083 members
— last activity 1 minute ago
Goodreads Librarians are volunteers who help ensure the accuracy of information about books and authors in the Goodreads' catalog. The Goodreads Libra ...more
Dark Regions Press readers and news
— 133 members
— last activity Jul 23, 2024 08:09AM
This is a group dedicated to news and topics revolving around publishing company Dark Regions Press, in business since 1985. Dark Regions Press spec ...more
Bargain Basement
— 8261 members
— last activity Jan 02, 2026 05:48AM
Join the Bargain Basement club for Freebies, bargains, reviews, and giveaways.
Furbjr’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at Furbjr’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
More friends…
Favorite Genres
Polls voted on by Furbjr
Lists liked by Furbjr







































