Thomas Jefferson: Original Remixer

from the well,-at-least-it-was-public-domain dept

Thomas Jefferson, of course, was the author of the Declaration of Independence, our third President, and had tremendous influence on the early days of our country. While he did not write the Constitution, he was still hugely influential in what went into it. It's been noted plenty of times that Jefferson was extremely skeptical of the copyright/patent clause of the Constitution. He was among those who suggested that monopolies would almost always do more harm than good. He later relented, and indeed ran the first Patent Office, though even then he seemed to remain quite skeptical of the idea of ever locking up knowledge. Either way, Aaron DeOliveira points us to the news that Thomas Jefferson was a remix artist before such things were cool (he was always such a trendsetter). Apparently he literally cut up and remixed the bible, to create a version "he believed was a more coherent narrative and pasted them onto blank paper."
Thomas Jefferson... a pirate?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:10pm

    "Thomas Jefferson... a pirate?"

    No, chubby. He's not a pirate. You can take your own books and chop them up for your own amusement if you like - just don't share them with anyone else.

    Fuck me, you are an idiot at times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Maximus Aurelius, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:20pm

    Remix?

    If by "remix" you meant "culled the supernatural nonsense from. . . ." The man was way ahead of his time.

    TJ was the original atheist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:30pm

    the jefferson bible. like all good remixes, I personally think it's an improvement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:31pm

    Plagiarism was common in the United States where founding documents were mostly straight copies of British and European text.

    Much later on they were still at it when Charles Dickens much moaned that those damned Americans were stealing his books. What would he now say to their movies from his stolen works?

    Even the King James Bible was stolen. This book took 47 scholars between 1604 and 1611 to complete the best English translation possible. Then those damned Americans stole it again through printing their own copies without even 1 cent being paid to those responsible for its construction.

    Is it not ironic now that the tide as turned that they squeal and squeal and squeal like a little bitch.

    Maybe people can see that these great works were all taken to be enjoyed and which have greatly enriched their receptive societies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:31pm

    Dude, no one gives a fuck if Maskick is chubby, gay or otherwise. Kindly go fuck yourself.

    You want to make a point, quit being anonymous or a fucking coward. Because, that is all you are, a fucking coward with no point to make.

    N.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:32pm

    *Masnick

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 8:33pm

    Re:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson's_Bible

    "After completion of the Life and Morals, about 1820, Jefferson shared it with a number of friends, but he never allowed it to be published during his lifetime.

    The most complete form Jefferson produced was inherited by his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, and was published in 1895 by the National Museum in Washington. The book was later published as a lithographic reproduction by an act of the United States Congress in 1904. For many years copies were given to new members of Congress."

    I imagine he never wanted it published while he was still alive had something to do with America's obsession with Christianity, then and now. Oh that Thomas Jefferson, such a blasphemer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Edwardo Angrito's Chiuawawa, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:27pm

    Would look great on a Rockstar's Tea Shirt (hehe)

    Thomas Jefferson is Dead, however, T-Shirt Warehouse, conveniently located in Culver City California, is just a quick jaunt away from Jefferson Street.

    If my sources are correct (And they usually are), Thomas Jefferson used to buy T-Shirts in bulk from there. Some say he purchchased loooooooots of t-shirts from there in his time. And Paul Revere did too. Tightened they pooled their money, and created a T-Shirt that said "The British are coming" leading to the legacy that we know of Revere today.

    Do you have a catchy saying or want to be a rockstar while keeping the profits from 360-deals? Place an order today!

    Visit the store- 5559 Sepulveda Blvd,  Culver City, CA 90230

    Or call (310) 397-4478

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:41pm

    And, with that we have a winner.

    @Edwardo Angrito's Chiuawawa

    Well played sir.
    N.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:46pm

    Re: Re:

    Well, since the bible was in the public domain, I am not sure what the issue might be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:49pm

    Re:

    What an incessant complainer you are, I'll bet you are the life of the party.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:49pm

    Seriously?

    ...remixes? Really? Weak sauce.

    Jefferson was notorious for much more straightforward types of commercial copyright infringement. In fact at the time the colonies as a whole were despised by the British for rampant piracy of British works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 9:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The Bible maybe in the public domain, but many translations are not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Yeah, just not your party.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:48pm

    Re:

    Much later on they were still at it when Charles Dickens much moaned that those damned Americans were stealing his books. What would he now say to their movies from his stolen works?

    Bear in mind, Dickens was a hypocrite. The US was importing books and not recognizing foreign copyrights, causing the flourishing America to profit from larger tours and cheap books.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Urza9814, Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 10:53pm

    Re:

    You, sir, are the idiot. He DID share them. It was called the Jefferson Bible, and for many years copies were given to all incoming congressmen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Dec 23rd, 2011 @ 11:07pm

    Re:

    Congratulations AC @ 8:10pm. Not only did you get the first comment in, but you gave an example that will be pointed to for years in the blogosphere on how to establish a truly meaningful dialog while holding an opposing view. Your skill at prose is simply amazing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Given short copyright terms at the time and the relatively few translations available it is likely that the one he used was in the public domain.

    Thed issue however is not the legality of what he did - but rather its derivative nature.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:12am

    Re:

    The King James version was paid for by all of his subjects, in one form or another, who would have included the ancestors of the American colonists as well as the earliest colonists who relied on one or more English translation before the King James or Authorized Version came out and became standard in the Church of England and, as it happened, dissenting churches of the time an later in England and around the Empire including what would become the Unites States after 1776 and Canada after 1867, In short the American colonists DID pay for the Authorized Version because it was authorized before the revolution and in use in British North America for over a century and a half when the American Revolution took place.

    And yes. the Americans borrowed from the ancient Greeks and Romans as they worked on their new republic just as they took on Magna Charta and other documents laws, precedents and practices from England.

    Keep in mind that the American Revolution as in many ways a civil war. English vs English one group in North America demanding no more than an Englishman of similar standing would have demanded and received in England. Also that they had considerable support in the Commons at the time while facing yet more opposition to their cause in the Lords and among supporters of George III. Among the supporters in the Commons were both Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger who are remembered now as great reformers of Parliament and the rights of the Commons over the Lords and the monarch.

    In some respects that Christianity took with it huge aspects of Hebrew/Jewish beliefs and customs which exist into today as their Messiah intended to reform Judaism not break from it as is evident within the Gospels. In some respects the nacient Christians were drive off, out of the synagogue after 67 CE by Jews/Hebrews who disagreed with their view of Jesus as Messiah.

    The American Revolution entrenched basic beliefs of English common and civil law and the concept of Free Speech which the Pitts and their successors would take back in England and reenforce and reestablish there. One fed the other in spite of some mutual hostility that continued until The Great War.

    Dickens and others from England and outside the United States would continue to complain about Americans stealing their work in one form or another until the United States finally signed onto the Berne Convention in the mid 1960s. But complain as Dickens did he didn't turn down what were enormous fees in those days to tour and speak and complain in the United States making more that way than he would on his books in his lifetime from the copyrights either he or his publishers back in blight would.

    The problem isn't that the U.S borrowed or plagiarized from Europe and the UK but it's that the SHORT terms of things like copyright and patents have been extended beyond all recognition of the purposes they were to serve on both sides of the pond. Nor did it stop England from plagiarizing, in their turn, constitutional and political ideas from the United States and adapting them for their own uses.

    The extension and corruption of copyright and patent law are hardly American ideas alone nor are the Americans soley responsible for them. Europeans can take their fair share of the blame as can the British.

    The problem here isn't necessarily anything the United States government has done in and of itself it's the unquestioning acceptance of legislators in the United States, Canada, Europe, the UK and elsewhere that what Hollywood says is happening with 'piracy' mostly greased by monstrous campaign contributions no matter where this issue has come up.

    The problem here is a seriously flawed and unworkable pair of bills that simply will not stop or even dent the problem they claim to be fighting but will cost more in liberty and freedom that is really worth losing over this so called problem. And England isn't exactly a font of innocence and wisdom on that score either In fact, in terms of even what's currently proposed in the United States the England is probably worse. Nor, for that matter, is Canada.

    As a Canadian getting to live "between" the UK and the US I'm not sure which I dislike more. Self-congratulatory and self-serving Americans or self-congratulatory and self-serving Brits. There is so little that differentiates the attitudes from either country.

    Where I think most of us agree is that culture cannot and ought not be locked into walled gardens for the entertainment industry whether the particular aspect of said industry is located in Hollywood, New York, London, Toronto or Vancouver.

    Culture, like so much else, wants to and demands to be free. A short, preferably non-renewable copyright grant (monopoly) of, say, the original 14 years is acceptable. Seven years would be better, IMHO. Lifetime + 70 years is totally and completely unacceptable as it becomes welfare for the entertainment industry and the artist be damned.

    And bills to prob up an industry than will not adapt to market changes is abhorrent particularly when it violates the US Bill of Rights and breaks the internet as it tries to do that. The latter kinda like the UK already does. Not that these industries cannot. Just that they will not. They're either too lazy or too frightened to do that so off they run to their bought and paid for legislators in Washington and London to protect them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are only two copyrighted Bible editions: the King James Bible, and the Gideons International Bible - and both of those were aided by Crown Copyright, which often donates works tot he public domain, SAVE the aforementioned Bible editions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:12am

    Re:

    And you, sir, never paid attention in History Class. Jeffersopn was the first American Pirate (in Hollywood terms). A notorious infringer of British works, Jefferson was also one of the most-forward thinking people of his time in some areas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:12am

    KJ Bible

    My point about the King James Bible is that after it was made it was given as a monopoly to only one printer to create to ensure quality and accuracy.

    Them Americans in their lawless society broke that agreement, not through owning purchased King James Bibles, but through establishing their own printers to knock off cheap counterfeit copies! And let me ask how many of those cheap copies had printing mistakes corrupting the word of God?

    They could have imported official copies but no it was much easier and cheaper to sell some other people's work as their own.

    Of course a monopoly is not a good thing, even if it still lives on here in the UK, but my point stands that the US has a long history of stealing other people's creations. It was not theirs to print and sell.

    Now that the shoe is on the other foot then why all the fuss? It seems that American society and culture much benefited from these stolen books. You loved and embarrassed them as much as we did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Old Fool (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:20am

    Re:

    Maskick was funnier, and oddly more apt given his attitude to stifling free speech.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Blatant Coward (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:42am

    Re: Re:

    Personally I'm the kind of person who'd complain if you hung me with a new rope.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:45am

    Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 3:51am

    SOPA Lullaby

    Johannes Brahms - Lullaby

    SOPA you can go
    You are not wanted.
    SOPA please go
    Censoring is not good
    Everybody finds liberty comforting.
    We all sleep better at night if you just go
    So please just go.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    TechnoMage (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 4:05am

    Re:

    I had a philosophy professor tell me once that the Jefferson Bible reads more like a philosophical paper by Plato/etc. than any religious work. Since the words Jesus spoke himself weren't about any religion, but were about how to treat your fellow man, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 4:08am

    SOPA Lullaby

    Quote:
    08-13-2008, 07:20 PM

    GeckoYamori
    Daniel Bärlin
    Sheng Long (+10000)
    OC ReMix Artist Profile
    Join Date: Apr 2002
    Location: Sweden

    Hans Zimmer uses the same god damn staccato fanfares almost all the time. It's no wonder some of his scores sound virtually identical.

    His soundtracks are so oversaturated with that stuff, I grew awfully bored of him many years ago. It's the euro cheese trance of film music.

    Source: "Pirates of the Caribbean" theme actually from "Gladiator" OST?
    I find it the song themes to be Handel like.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSAd3NpDi6Q

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 5:00am

    Re:

    Facts, as with logic and basic civility, are your enemy its seems. What a surprise...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible#Publication_history

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:06am

    The Hollywood Walk of Fame, someday somebody will put a lot of tar in there and spread a feather on it and call it "Hollywood Chicken Little Walk".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The Bible maybe in the public domain"

    Give it a couple years and copyright will include the bible. Forever minus a day, and a book like the bible, you have a winner there for passing a law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:36am

    Re:

    If you want the anti mikes name address, and telephone number it is easy enough to figure out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Thank goodness

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:51am

    This is a poor article through and through, a transparent attempt to link copyright with religion just around Christmas time. If TJ edited the Bible by omitting certain text, he's going against what it says in Revelation 22:19: "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."

    Mike, surely there are better examples you can use than this if you're trying to show how our forefathers/ancestors took liberty with others' works. More to the heart of the matter, we need to focus on the stuff which affects contemporary society. As it stands, a handful of mega corporations hold a majority of artistic and technological works and ideas under the lock and key of copyright. The enemy is quite clearly copyright, its ridiculously broad and oftentimes hostile use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 7:47am

    Re:

    "a transparent attempt to link copyright with religion just around Christmas time"

    Like it or not, the two are connected.

    "If TJ edited the Bible by omitting certain text, he's going against what it says"

    Meaningless, unless you take the word of the bible as something other than a piece of literature. That Jefferson apparently disagreed with you here does not make discussion of his work less valid.

    "More to the heart of the matter, we need to focus on the stuff which affects contemporary society."

    This does affect modern times, and is directly analogous to work done every day - work that the legacy gatekeepers try to prevent.

    "The enemy is quite clearly copyright, its ridiculously broad and oftentimes hostile use."

    Indeed. So, why is it wrong to point out that one of the founding fathers of your nation felt the same way?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:02am

    Re:

    Just remember that the bible is not only a work of fiction, but would be considered hearsay in a court of law. Why? The first words were not written down until about 100 years after the man name Jesus lived.

    And yes, I am a recovering catholic. Recovering from hypocrisy, manipulation, and lies. The lies of the crusades, the married pope that decided priests should be celibate, and the inquisition, to name just a few.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:10am

    This reminds me of the "Simpsons" episode in which Bart cut out the "swear words" in the Bible and put them on a bulletin board.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:25am

    Re: Re:

    "Like it or not, the two are connected."

    You mean morally? I don't know about that. In this instance, I'd question the hacking up of the Word of God over any supposed claim of copyright violation.

    "Meaningless, unless you take the word of the bible as something other than a piece of literature."

    And I do. The Bible should never be considered corporate property.

    "That Jefferson apparently disagreed with you here does not make discussion of his work less valid."

    Yet it does nothing to further the cause against SOPA. We won't achieve anything unless we focus on contemporary laws and society, not how things used to be about two centuries ago.

    "This does affect modern times, and is directly analogous to work done every day - work that the legacy gatekeepers try to prevent."

    Ok, but an example such as this would offend a lot of religious people. I'm saying that Mike should find better analogies than this somewhat empty claim that TJ was a pirate because he hacked up the Bible. Furthermore, as was mentioned, TJ went against his initial beliefs and began the Patent Office, so the pro-copyright crowd can always use that fact to their advantage.

    "Indeed. So, why is it wrong to point out that one of the founding fathers of your nation felt the same way?"

    Once again, it's not how our forefathers felt about copyright but rather the example being used. If we're going to talk about morality and consequences then we need no better example than the corporate monopolies and their shady business practices -- the outright theft of artistic works and ideas due to legal contracts which are worded in such a way to deny the artists the right to own their own work. It becomes the property of the corporates who need only to sit back and watch the cash flow in. When they want more profit and regulatory control, they send their lobbyist henchmen to Washington with a nice paycheck. What we're talking about now is the outright theft of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That, to me, is a far more relevant discussion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re:

    You believe what you will. I'm Catholic and that's the end of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:36am

    This completely misses the true technological tragedy that afflicts copyright: people learned how to read. Were taught how to do it by filthy sharing pirates called "teachers", learned how to write too! By copying the letters these freetardian "instructors" showed them! Further compounding this apocalypse was the dissemination of information, like math and history, the fomentation of critical thinking amongst the dirty masses, and the wholesale exposure to experience and knowledge by these thieving "educators" and "thinkers" and "communicators" and "archivists".

    It was all downhill from there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "In this instance, I'd question the hacking up of the Word of God over any supposed claim of copyright violation."

    You're entitled to your opinion. If I were more of an asshole, I'd start questioning you and ask if you'd say the same of the texts of other religions, ancient and modern, but that's a discussion for another time and place. Let's just say that the reverence that one group of people place on the text is irrelevant to any point I'm making.

    "The Bible should never be considered corporate property."

    Here, we agree. But for reasons of the book's age and cultural significance, not anything more.

    "Yet it does nothing to further the cause against SOPA."

    I disagree. The many parallels between Jefferson's work and the work that the modern day industry are trying to outlaw are extremely relevant. It's a shame that the mindset of some people hasn't changed in that time, but the fundamental concepts remain the same.

    "an example such as this would offend a lot of religious people"

    For those of us who aren't religious, talk of modern reality is far more important than the feelings of another group of people. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

    "empty claim that TJ was a pirate because he hacked up the Bible"

    That's not really what's being said, and the actual claims are hardly empty. Jefferson's work just happens to be a good example.

    "Once again, it's not how our forefathers felt about copyright but rather the example being used. "

    So, you wish to nitpick over the way the ideas are being presented than look at the larger picture?

    "the outright theft of artistic works and ideas due to legal contracts which are worded in such a way to deny the artists the right to own their own work."

    That's one part of it, yes. The other parts include the theft of work from the public domain, retroactive extensions of copyright long after the author's death, and other such transgressions. If these corporations had their way, older documents could quite easily be robbed from our culture.

    Our feelings overlap, but I fear you're letting your religious beliefs cloud the issues actually being raised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Welcome to a free country, where Catholics, ex-Catholics and non-Catholics are all equally free to express their beliefs and opinions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Re:

    IOW, once greedy folks came up with the idea to monetize ideas and copyright others' artistic endeavors as their own, and were given legal precedence to go after infringers, things went straight downhill. Nowadays, they utilize copyright to give themselves unchecked, draconian-styled powers over the internet. The content providers can't be bothered to compete in the open environment that the internet makes readily available to all, so they must subdue it and reshape it in their own corporate image.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Michael, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We agree on the talking points, but clearly have our religious differences, so let's not broach the subject and turn this thread into yet another pro/anti-religion diatribe.

    "That's one part of it, yes. The other parts include the theft of work from the public domain, retroactive extensions of copyright long after the author's death, and other such transgressions. If these corporations had their way, older documents could quite easily be robbed from our culture."

    To put it bluntly, I'm in full agreement with you here. We both agree that copyright extensions and its use as an insturment for an overreaching power grab are impediments to the internet and society in general.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 9:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Furthermore, as was mentioned, TJ went against his initial beliefs and began the Patent Office, so the pro-copyright crowd can always use that fact to their advantage.

    Actually, he did it in a sensible way (fight from the inside) to try and prevent the stupidity we see coming from the Patent Office, in granting patents for everything:

    Jefferson and the Patent System

    Jefferson's original view on patents may not surprise those who are aware of his strong views about democracy and equality. He opposed patents strongly because he considered it an unfair monopoly. However, a biography of Jefferson also shows his great love for invention, and as soon as he became more aware of the role of the patent office's power to tremendously encourage invention, he became much more in favor of their use. These two different perceptions of patents explain, in part, why Jefferson formulated a policy for patents that encouraged the invention he so wanted to see in America but maintained very stringent restrictions on what could be patented so that the system would not be abused, demonstrating both his respect for invention and his strict definition of what is an invention and what is not. Following is a chronological list of Jefferson's role in the development of the United States Patent Office; however, if you are interested in an extensive analysis of Jefferson's involvement in the Patent Office, the following essay focuses upon not only Jefferson's role but also how it characterizes him as an inventor.

    The Patent Office

    * Jefferson, as Secretary of State, became the leader of the three-man board created by the first Patent Act in 1790 which attempted to create a patent system very similar to the one that the British had in use

    * He "agreed that inventors should have full rights to their inventions" but was not sure about the constitutionality of patents and was worried patents would delay the ability of new inventions to reach the general public, so he had "mixed feelings" (Bedini) about assuming his role in the patent system

    * With these "serious reservations" (Bedini) in mind, he created a very specific and strict definition for what would obtain a patent and what would not and became so meticulous in his examination of patent petitions (he was know to personally test some of the inventions) that it was taking up more of his time than it should have as only one of many of his jobs as Secretary of State

    -- his first criterion in judging the inventions was that they had to be useful

    -- a patent wouldn't be granted to someone who had just come up with another application of something that was already invented (which is one of the reasons he did not apply for any patents himself since most of his so-called inventions he considered adaptations of inventions already in existence)

    -- a patent wouldn't given when it was just an old invention built with a different material

    -- He was angered by the considerable number of "frivolous" patents that the office received petitions for, stating that their "abuse...is likely to cause more inconvenience than is countervailed by those really useful" (Bedini) and he made provisions to counteract these such as his rule that no patent would be granted for an "invention" that was simply the combination of existing inventions

    -- less than half of those who petitioned for patents received them in the end due to the strict rules laid down by Jefferson

    * He became more open to the idea of patents, however, when he saw how many American inventors put their ideas forward as a direct result of the new system of protection, claiming that "it has given a spring of invention beyond my conception" (Bedini)

    * Jefferson was extremely enthusiastic about just being a part of the group that got to review the inventions in such detail because he was so excited that he got to see people's ideas

    * Jefferson however needed to "relieve himself" of his patent duties because he felt that more time needed to be given to the job than the otherwise very busy Secretary of State was able to give (Bedini)

    * The patent act of 1793 finally allowed Jefferson to pass on his duties as patent officer but much to his dismay made the "granting of patents almost entirely an automatic matter" which was almost the opposite of the very strict system Jefferson had established (Bedini)

    * This "automatic" system, however, did not last long as a new code for patents was written in 1836 that was "a compromise of sorts between the strictness of Thomas Jefferson's tenure and the free-wheeling acceptance of all patent claims during the intervening years" (Bedini) This 1836 law is the one currently in use and is certainly evidence of Jefferson's impact on the patent system and American invention as a whole

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    On the Internet, religion always seems to turn into a flame war. In life it turns into real war. I'm glad we have the Internet, at least nobody is killed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:34am

    Re: KJ Bible

    Is it possible that the dictionary was copied also?
    Heaven forbid!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "I'd question the hacking up of the Word of God over any supposed claim of copyright violation."

    The word of whom?
    AFAIK, the bible was written by humans - as were all other religious texts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    How dare the unwashed masses aspire to greater goals than serving the self appointed elite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    bjupton (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Can I withdraw my previous moderated comment?

    I don't want to contribute to something non-productive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Carlos Solís a.k.a. ArkBlitz (in the rest of the I (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 11:37am

    Re: Remix?

    Deist, actually. He believed in the concept of a superior entity, it's just that he just thought that religions had a wrong conception of it. Thus his culling of supernatural details off the Bible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Seriously?

    Let's do a kickstarter project. We need funds to buy Mike a dictionary. Because now editing == remixing :s
    Editors would be pissed. Remixers as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 12:55pm

    Re:

    Now now, don't give up the opportunity to refer to said AC as "micropenis" for the rest of his posting history.

    If micropenis wants to refer to Masnick as "chubby", let him do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re:

    Indeed, my protectionist friends.

    Also, I forgot to blame parents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Sorry - "parents".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Re:

    The lies of the crusades, the married pope that decided priests should be celibate, and the inquisition, to name just a few.

    Hang on, when did the pope get married?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    KelvinZevallos (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 1:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Amen to that!

    Hopefully it will stay that way...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Except people who deal with Craigslist, apparently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    This gives me an idea. I think I'll make remixes of the Jefferson Starship music I've pirated.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think there are a lot more editions that are copyrighted than that. The Revised English Bible for example is copyrighted by Oxford and Cambridge Press. The Revised Standard Version, and the New Revised Standard Version are both copyrighted by the National Council of Churches of Christ. With a little research I'm sure you could find others. The only one I found that was copyright waived was the World English Bible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, I don't believe that Gideons International has their own translation. They may copyright the introduction and the study aids, but in the US at least the bible itself is in fact KJV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 6:50pm

    Moderated

    I had a post held for moderation. With all the malevolence sometimes found in some of the posts by the AC's, I wondering what kicked the trigger, to have a post held for Moderator review.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    WDS (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 7:18pm

    Re: Moderated

    It obviously wasn't bad grammar or the post wondering about it would have been held. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

    Re: Moderated

    The filter is designed to catch spam, so it decided there was something spammy-looking about your post. I don't know what the rules are though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 24th, 2011 @ 8:44pm

    Re:

    If TJ edited the Bible by omitting certain text, he's going against what it says in Revelation 22:19: "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."

    Well, there goes the Vatican! You realize if you want to read the WHOLE Christian Bible, you need a lifetime and access to the vaults in Vatican City, right? And polish up on your Aramaic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    Andrew F (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 2:22am

    Re:

    Maskick-yo-ass?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 6:20am

    Re: Moderated

    Anything could have triggered, but it is not so bad, many times I get posts held for moderation and they appear after the weekend or the next day once someone takes a look at the filter, sometimes they do not, then I post it again and in general its accepted on the first try, so it may not be just words, it may be turned on and off at times(manually or by some automated means, think 3 strikes but done by the computer) or it may be looking at the referrer, it may be using IPs, it may be looking at the frequency you post.

    But if you want to get some clues of what happens.
    https://codex.wordpress.org/Combating_Comment_Spam
    https://codex.wordpress.org/Troublesho oting#Comment_Spam
    https://codex.wordpress.org/Spam_Words
    https://codex.wordpress.org/Comment_Spam

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Stephan Kinsella (profile), Dec 25th, 2011 @ 10:21am

    Galambos on Jefferson

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 25th, 2011 @ 9:46pm

    Re:

    Speaking of bitching and moaning, stop doing it on behalf of those who had a profit-motive four centuries ago. Ideas are free and uncontrollable once they have been released. If you knew the meaning of life, could you keep it to yourself or would you try to profit from it? You'd either be a liar or an idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    staff, Dec 26th, 2011 @ 9:02am

    more dissembling

    You have twisted the truth. Ideas have never been patentable -not then, not now. Clearly, Jefferson believed inventions (not just ideas) deserved patents, or he would not have been the first commissioner. You have misrepresented the facts and possibly created them as you provided no citations which could be authenticated.

    Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
    https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1

    They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    heyidiot (profile), Dec 26th, 2011 @ 12:39pm

    "Good" is the operative word...

    ...because I know that Sir A.C.Doyle is spinning in his grave over the two Sherlock Holmes movies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    heyidiot (profile), Dec 26th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: KJ Bible

    yeah, but we corrected all the spelling mistakes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 26th, 2011 @ 6:03pm

    I am shocked to see an article about the Bible and yet not a single mention about how Jesus was the original pirate.

    No wonder ACTA is involving the fishery industry. We've got a generational organisation that believes bread and fish should be freely copied! Dastardly!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Dec 26th, 2011 @ 10:36pm

    Re: more dissembling

    Ideas have never been patentable -not then, not now.

    You might wanna check up on patent law. Ideas are patentable.

    Clearly, Jefferson believed inventions (not just ideas) deserved patents, or he would not have been the first commissioner.

    You're misguided. Read this, please.

    You have misrepresented the facts and possibly created them as you provided no citations which could be authenticated.

    No, that seems to be your MO. Try to have some proof of your assertion that Jefferson, known skeptic of copyright and patents, believed in patents or copyright and miniature monopolies.

    Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any

    Mad again, staff? Kind of sad that you have such negativity emanating from you when it could be used to prove the flaws of the patent system right now. Since I already know that your assertions are baseless statements, it's not worth the time to get into a proper debunking. The fact is, the patent system is beyond broken. This has been discussed in minute detail. Unless you can prove otherwise, you've sadly fallen short yet again in your ad hom attacks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 7:27am

    Re:

    Do you think Charles Dickens would have written Great Expectations or a Christmas Carol if copyright protections didn't exist? That is the question you should be asking yourself, without copyright would these works have been created? Why spend months writing something if it can be stolen?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 8:38am

    Re: "Good" is the operative word...

    ...because I know that Sir A.C.Doyle is spinning in his grave over the two Sherlock Holmes movies.

    I haven't seen the second movie, but I thoroughly enjoyed the first. And I've read nearly all of Doyle's Holmes stories. Just because it's not a literal and faithful adaptation, doesn't make it bad, at least not IMHO. I think Doyle would be more upset about CSI.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re:

    Do you think Charles Dickens would have written Great Expectations or a Christmas Carol if copyright protections didn't exist?

    Yes.

    That is the question you should be asking yourself, without copyright would these works have been created?

    Yes.

    Why spend months writing something if it can be stolen?

    Let me answer your question with another question. Why should you do any type of work if you won't get paid for the rest of your life for doing it? Just because you can't get paid forever for work you do today, doesn't mean you shouldn't work. How many authors, artists, poets, and other artists create works for which they will never get paid? Millions. And yet they still create. Hmm. Funny how that works.

    Also, unless you mean someone stealing his manuscript prior to publication, the correct term is "infringed upon" not "stolen."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 9:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Not the current Pope, but early popes (is that the plural of 'pope'?) were a different story.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 11:17am

    Re: Re: more dissembling

    You might wanna check up on patent law. Ideas are patentable.

    You could argue that the patent office has in practice granted patents to ideas, but ideas are not supposed to be patentable.

    http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/11/23/protecting-ideas-can-you-patent-an-idea/id=13495 /

    http://tenonline.org/art/9010.html

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/48746

    I could go on, but so far every single article I've found says "ideas are not patentable". Some even preface that statement with "unfortunately", so even some people who wish ideas were patentable acknowledge that they aren't (according to the law anyway).

    The statute says "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." No mention of ideas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    JEIDIDIAH, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: more dissembling

    > You could argue that the patent office has in
    > practice granted patents to ideas, but ideas
    > are not supposed to be patentable.

    That is an irrelevant distinction.

    We have to deal with what exists in practice rather than what one might conclude from a strict reading of the relevant laws. That includes copyright terms that are anything but "limited" and pharmaceutical companies that are pressing for the same approach with patents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 6:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: more dissembling

    I don't agree that it's irrelevant. If the patent office is granting patents on ideas, the President can put a stop to that immediately and unilaterally. If the statute granted protection to ideas, it would take an act of Congress to change it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This