<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: One Is Not Enough, How Many Is Too Many? How Many Countries’ Copyright Laws Should and Actually Do Apply to Copyright Infringements on the Internet? (Guest Blog Post)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/one-is-not-enough-how-many-is-too-many-how-many-countries-copyright-laws-should-and-actually-do-apply-to-copyright-infringements-on-the-internet-guest-blog-post.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/one-is-not-enough-how-many-is-too-many-how-many-countries-copyright-laws-should-and-actually-do-apply-to-copyright-infringements-on-the-internet-guest-blog-post.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:02:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Cybergovernance Reading List (2015-02-10) - Spatializations		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/one-is-not-enough-how-many-is-too-many-how-many-countries-copyright-laws-should-and-actually-do-apply-to-copyright-infringements-on-the-internet-guest-blog-post.htm#comment-1163</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cybergovernance Reading List (2015-02-10) - Spatializations]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13681#comment-1163</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] One Is Not Enough, How Many Is Too Many? How Many Countries’ Copyright Laws Should and Actually Do&#8230; &#8211; Technology and Marketing Law Blog [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] One Is Not Enough, How Many Is Too Many? How Many Countries’ Copyright Laws Should and Actually Do&#8230; &#8211; Technology and Marketing Law Blog [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: curtisneeley		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/01/one-is-not-enough-how-many-is-too-many-how-many-countries-copyright-laws-should-and-actually-do-apply-to-copyright-infringements-on-the-internet-guest-blog-post.htm#comment-1143</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[curtisneeley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13681#comment-1143</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Really? Free speech rights are inalienable human rights because NO natural rights are created by humans. 

England first recognized the inalienable human right to control original visual creations in 1734. There was no name or word for these newly recognized inalienable rights but English law first addressed this human right to not be copied as &quot;copy-right&quot;. 

Sir William Blackstone coined the word &quot;copyright&quot; on p406 of &quot;Right of Things&quot; with footnotes &quot;L&quot; and &quot;M&quot; referring to prior usage of &quot;copy-right&quot; in English legal rulings.  This is within the 26th chapter of the second volume of the series of law books still taught in the best law schools titled &quot;Commentaries on the Laws of England&quot;. The authoritative Johnson&#039;s dictionary of England never included this new word until added to an American printing of Johnson&#039;s dictionary in 1799.

Noah Webster of &quot;Websters&#039; Dictionary&quot; used Congress to help him copy the 1710 book publications monopolization ritual (Statute of Anne)  to help the new country develop a new language and print new American school texts written by Noah Webster with: (honor, color, judgment) instead of reprinting the imported schoolbooks from England with: (honour, colour, judgement).  Noah Webster plagiarized the 1710 Statute of Anne but ignored the 1734 Engravers Act and the 1766 Hogarth&#039;s Act that had already replaced the Statute of Anne by recognizing the inalienable human right to exclusively control creations was the first inalienable right to survive beyond the death of the human creator.

America does not recognize the human right to control original visual art and is no longer Berne Convention Compliant though being a non-compliant signatory since 1988 among 168 nations or most nations on earth.

SCOTUS alleged unstinting Berne Convention Compliance in the (Golan v Holder) ruling but Lord Most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren made America non-compliant in 2012 in (&lt;i&gt;Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al&lt;/i&gt;) and GOOG claims this ruling cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really? Free speech rights are inalienable human rights because NO natural rights are created by humans. </p>
<p>England first recognized the inalienable human right to control original visual creations in 1734. There was no name or word for these newly recognized inalienable rights but English law first addressed this human right to not be copied as &#8220;copy-right&#8221;. </p>
<p>Sir William Blackstone coined the word &#8220;copyright&#8221; on p406 of &#8220;Right of Things&#8221; with footnotes &#8220;L&#8221; and &#8220;M&#8221; referring to prior usage of &#8220;copy-right&#8221; in English legal rulings.  This is within the 26th chapter of the second volume of the series of law books still taught in the best law schools titled &#8220;Commentaries on the Laws of England&#8221;. The authoritative Johnson&#8217;s dictionary of England never included this new word until added to an American printing of Johnson&#8217;s dictionary in 1799.</p>
<p>Noah Webster of &#8220;Websters&#8217; Dictionary&#8221; used Congress to help him copy the 1710 book publications monopolization ritual (Statute of Anne)  to help the new country develop a new language and print new American school texts written by Noah Webster with: (honor, color, judgment) instead of reprinting the imported schoolbooks from England with: (honour, colour, judgement).  Noah Webster plagiarized the 1710 Statute of Anne but ignored the 1734 Engravers Act and the 1766 Hogarth&#8217;s Act that had already replaced the Statute of Anne by recognizing the inalienable human right to exclusively control creations was the first inalienable right to survive beyond the death of the human creator.</p>
<p>America does not recognize the human right to control original visual art and is no longer Berne Convention Compliant though being a non-compliant signatory since 1988 among 168 nations or most nations on earth.</p>
<p>SCOTUS alleged unstinting Berne Convention Compliance in the (Golan v Holder) ruling but Lord Most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren made America non-compliant in 2012 in (<i>Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al</i>) and GOOG claims this ruling cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
