February 4, 2012 @ 10:02am
In 1790 Nolan Webster desired that wealthy colonial parents with children would use books written in "colonial" English instead of using textbooks imported from Great Britain as many of the wealthy often were already doing.
Noel Webster felt colonial English was practically a "new" language and needed its own set of standardized text. In order to keep each colony from adopting textbooks that were brought from England and just reprinted by local presses, Nolan Webster realized a common related colonial elementary English text would need to be published. In order to create a copy[rite] regime like was used in England to keep textbooks consistent , Noel Webster felt it was time for each new State to recognize the same national copying ritual or authority. Noel Webster teamed with career lawyer, Benjamin Huntington, and introduced the Copy[rite] act of 1790.
Ironically the Copy[rite] act of 1790 was a mostly plagiarized and altered 1710 Statute of Anne from the country the United States had just defeated in the Revolutionary War. The "Kings Library" deposit was replaced by the Library of Congress and the ritual of exclusively controlling publication of an ideal was created and called a "right" instead of a ritual. The new term "copyright" was created and the ritual for purchasing a "right" to control the issue of a book of ideals was begun by the patriarch of Webster's Dictionary, Noel Webster.
The United States had thereby imported the ritual for controlling publication of ideals from England when printing presses were still too expensive for the common citizen. The ability to establish economic monopolies on printed ideals became the imported "right" to control publication of an ideal and recover the overhead of printing. An agreed-to monopoly for a limited time was born.
After 186 years, two world wars, and one civil war; There was recognized to be a need to allow exceptions to the copy[rite] monopoly to allow massive distribution of ideals via the new inexpensive presses. The copy[rite] Act of 1976 was written and the "fair-use" exceptions were established. The idea-expression consideration was recognized.
Europe had been utterly ravaged by two World Wars. Counties not much larger than states, with entirely different languages and cultures, allowed the human right to control original personal ideals to evolve more quickly and be recognized in the Berne Convention. Dozens of countries and cultures on the same continent required better international publication relationships than were needed the physically isolated United States. The primarily economic publication ritual in the United States, with fair-use exceptions developed and the ritual that was never an Author or inventors personal right was maintained while the personal rights to control original ideas were soundly recognized in Europe and most of the developed world.
The United States finally became aware that the personal rights recognized around the globe were not statutorily recognized in 1988 when the Berne Convention Treaty was finally chosen by congress. The individual "moral rights" that were included in article 6bis were alleged to be protected by various civil laws and the archaic modified Statute of Anne from 11710 was altered in 1990 to appear to protect moral rights for a select few visual artists.
The United States passed further modifications of the archaic but modified Statute of Anne from 11710 in 1994 to recognize rights of artist regardless of country. Congress made it clear the intentions were to fully comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Compact without reservations.
[i]Golan v Holder,[/i] ([url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-545.htm]10-545[/url]) was an attempt by scores of various anti-copy[rite] parties to claim that the 1994 archaic modification of the modified Statute of Anne went beyond the constitutional authorizations of Congress by shrinking the "Public Domain" and violating the First Amendment.
Kent Paulson Esq attempted to radically expand the qualified "Freedom of Speech" enshrined in the First Amendment to be instead "Free speech" as President of the First Amendment Center by stating as follows.
[quote][i][url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/some-expression-now-unfree-after-courts-ruling]Let’s be clear about what free speech is. In addition to being an individual’s personal expression, it includes the performance of a work that someone else has created. It is an exercise of free speech to stage a play or conduct a symphony. It’s also free speech when you mash up multiple songs into a new work.[/url][/i][/quote]
This fraudulent claim by the President of the First Amendment Center creates a liability for the First Amendment Center for violations of copy[rite] done as recommended by the Center. What in fact happened conclusively in the [i]Golan v Holder,[/i] ([url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-545.htm]10-545[/url]) ruling was that the Berne Convention Articles 1-21 became self-executing and patched the backwards and archaic United States Copy[rite] Act.
[b]United states now finally joined the rest of the developed Earth in enforcing the Berne Convention.[/b]