The stuff about the history of copyright at Main Page ("Copyright was originally intended as a mechanism to promote the creation of works"), Copyright and Core Policy is just plain wrong... copyright grew out of censorship, it was marketed as being for authors but it was actually created and promoted entirely by censors and publishers. See (in order of importance):

• http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/01/history-of-copyright-part-1-black-death/
• http://questioncopyright.org/promise
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright

Also on the Main Page:
"We don't think authors have a moral right to impose such control, but rather that such control can only be justified by democratic agreement to advance the public good by providing an incentive for creating works."
This says basically nothing. Copyright maximalists could say the same.

In terms of materials, of course per-copy profits are necessary, because they use scarce resources. In terms of pure information, people do not need (and have never needed) per-copy profits to have incentive for creating works. Information is not scarce, and culture is anti-scarce.

I think the origins of copyright law predate January 13, 1535 (which is the earliest date I saw in the above references). The Statute of Monopolies, passed on 25 May 1624, as I understand it, was based on the idea that grants of royal privilege (used among other things to restrict copying) could not be justified if they were harmful to the public good <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies>. I believe such grants of royal privilege go back to somewhere around the 10th century <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/25121/Anglo-Saxon-law>. You could argue, I suppose, that the Statute of Monopolies was not a reinstatement of original limitations on royal privilege, but rather a novel reinterpretation of royal privilege, but OTOH I'm not sure royal privilege was originally about censorship either. Also, for what it's worth, I believe something similar to a limited form of copyright or patents is thought to have existed in ancient Greece <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law#cite_ref-5>, and was for the promotion of good works (although I guess it might be debated whether this played any part in the origin of the copyright law we have now).

I think you're right that this page is in need of a rewrite, but I don't think it's accurate to say that copyright originated in censorship either. In any case the Statute of Anne is widely regarded as the beginning of modern copyright law at least, and the copyright clause in the USA constitution was a significant early decision in USA copyright law (which is very relevant because it is the USA in particular that is pushing copyright restrictions today). So to me, I think these are probably two of the most significant developments in the early history of copyright. If we want to go back earlier than these, then I think it would probably be best to keep it pretty brief, essentially as a bit of background for these two.

I don't agree. If copyright is considered a moral right, then we would conclude that it ought to be imposed no matter what. If copyright is instead considered as a democratic agreement to advance the public good, then it must meet three conditions. It must actually be supported by real democratic agreement (not a claim of right), it must actually advance the public good (so not be imposed beyond the extent that the marginal economic benefit of further restriction would be outweighed by the marginal economic detriment of it), and it must not infringe on our personal rights (unless you consider democracy to be a justification for infringing on people's personal rights).

Rufus Pollock reckons that there's an economic benefit in allowing a 15 year term of copyright restriction <http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf> <http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf>, and he seems credible to me.

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

I personally agree, however the official line of copyright beginning with the Statue of Anne was "The encouragement of learning" by providing an incentive for authors to write and publish. For most works (writers, musicians) I think copyright is completely unnecessary today because the cost of creating and 'getting published' is much lower. The same may not be true of film where production costs can be much greater, and I think there may arguably be some place for copyright still. A limited amount of copyright that restricts the publishing industries alone, and that does not infringe on personal liberties, is quite acceptable and would provide the majority of any beneficial effect of current copyright.

Moral right vs. public good? The viewpoint makes all the difference in the world. The 'copyright industries' argue from the perspective of moral rights and Intellectual Property, as if copying their work is equivalent to breaking into their homes and stealing their personal property. We view it more as an agreement where the publishers are given a limited monopoly in exchange for providing a public service (which historically it was supposed to be) but now they're demanding ever more favours for even less return.

Copyright protection works while the author is publisher shopping, as it reduces the risk of the publisher simply printing the work anyway without title or remuneration (which publishers still try on to this day). Publishers are then incentivised to take a punt on paying the author a competitive price for their work as the publisher is also protected by copyright from other publishers simply reprinting the work (which publishers, and pirates, still try on to this day).
Now that the author and the publisher can be one and the same thing, why should they forgo the protection offered to both roles? It now becomes of greater interest to clearly attribute, own, and control the results of your work.

Quite right. Copyright holders have an absolute moral right to own and control bits of cybertao's brain, and the sooner they take back what is rightfully theirs, the better for all of us.

That's quite an obtuse argument to use. I assume you mean knowledge that I may have learned? Just because I might devise a screwpump for water from something I once read in a book doesn't make it any less attributed to Archimedes. That I know of the character Harry Potter and have an impression of him in my mind doesn't make him any less J.K.Rowling's.
It's an interesting argument though. It might make interesting subject matter for a science-fiction story where your memories or sensory input can be recorded. 'We can licence your memories to you wholesale!'

The proposition was that the low cost of entry to publish made copyright redundant, while I argue that reinforces the need for consistent and balanced copyright. Talking about bits of people's brains is a way out there and off topic.

Your sensory input is recorded in your memories. Your memories of a work are themselves copies of the work.

My disagreement is not with what you explicitly argue, but with what you implicitly assume. In saying "Now that the author and the publisher can be one and the same thing, why should they forgo the protection offered to both roles? It now becomes of greater interest to clearly attribute, own, and control the results of your work.", you assume that in determining what is appropriate for copyright, we need consider no-one besides the author and the publisher.

In this post (linked) I argued that copyright is not a moral right. Rather than attempt to address this argument, you said something about South Park, Walmart, and hookers, and wrote "Regardless of your personal views towards ownership of, or non-existance of, intellectual property, they are pretty darn adamant about their views." as if that were an argument.

After having refused to address the argument, you later asked what moral justification I had for objecting to copyright "How does copyright on someone else's work infringe on your liberty?". I replied in this post (linked) by pointing to the arguments on the PPNZ wiki, the argument of mine that you had earlier refused to address, and also by alluding to the point that your memories of a work are also copies of the work.

You then promptly vanished from that thread, and later resurfaced here, to imply things that you have twice refused to actually argue.

Did you not remember this? Copyright holders may as well remove your memory, because you're clearly not using it.

I'd stick around if you didn't keep drifting the subject towards brain ownership.
My brain is mine. No one can claim ownership over it because of copyright content in exactly the same way no one can claim ownership of my harddrives because of what they contain.

If you can't handle dealing with me, someone interested in copyright reform rather than a financially backed lobbyist who's interested in strengthening it, you don't stand a snow-balls chance in hell should this party manage to get anywhere.

Good, well done. Copyright holders don't own your brain, or your hard drive, or your computer more generally, or music CDs you bought, or blank CDs you bought. But this raises the question, how can copyright holders claim a moral right to control things they don't own on the basis of property rights?

You're right. Idiots piss me off, so I probably wouldn't make a good spokesperson.

So I'm an idiot because I don't agree with your position that copyright is only destructive, has no place or purpose, and shouldn't exist?
Because you are *swamped* with idiots then. Most people understand the concept of copyright and think it to be fair - the devil is in the detail. Go on, treat me like an idiot. Try and explain it like I'm a child where you can't go off on some brain-owning tangent or demand I read the parties dogma on the wiki.
Because you will have to do it an awful lot if that's the change you plan to instigate.

You can start by continuing the thread and replying to my post on the benefits copyright provide.