Slashdot Mirror

Really? Could you give us an example of such a use of the word "piracy" from before the copyright was invented? Were you conscious when you wrote that?

From 1603:

Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.

it was not that long ago that smoking was not considered bad.

Really? When was that? The 18th century, maybe? Probably not even then. In fact, as far back as the 17th century Dutch painters had used tobacco and smoking to symbolise human folly. In the opinion of King James I of England, tobacco was "loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain" and "dangerous to the lungs". That was 1609.

I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.

Wikipedia (yes, I know) points to this 1603 reference to "word-pirates":
http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/yeare.html

400 years if you count that non-pillaging use, 300 or so if you count the US copyright law (second reference in that Wikipedia article on copyright infringement).

The pirates arrested were guilty of piracy in that sense: organised copying and redistribution for profit. Piracy is a fine word. What I'm opposed to is people being labelled pirates for just copying movies to watch, if they're going to use that definition :)

Sure, because we all have the time to correct unsupported claims on the internet, right? That's the reason only idiots bother with giving references, we all just throw stuff out there... Except that it's the opposite.
Fortunately, Mikkeles was intelligent enough to furnish enough info that I was able to find the reference you were too lazy to look for: Daniel Dafoe's 1703 preface to "The True-Born Englishman".
Note that the reference is 1703, not 1701 as your link claimed.

So it all stems from a guy named Daniel Defoe misappropriating the word near the turn of the 18th century? What a vivid imagination that guy had. Didn’t he also write “Robinson Crusoe”?

~ ~ Yes, I realise it didn’t start with him. Amusingly, though, it was originally used metaphorically.

For instance... (from 1603)

Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad (and thanke Apollo for it too) if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.

A terrible metaphor, but it seems to have stuck.

Piracy is a centuries-old term for breach of copyright. Daniel Defoe acknoweldged it in 1703.

Had I wrote it for the gain of the press, I should have been concerned at its being printed again and again by pirates, as they call them, and paragraph-men; but would they but do it justice and print it true according to the copy, they are welcome to sell it for a penny if they please.

from http://www.luminarium.org/editions/trueborn.htm

I did a modicum of research, and I still think using "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement is wrong. Wikipedia (where you linked) says

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates". [3]

The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[4][5] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity, though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.[6]

However, a word search of DeFoe's document does not show the word "Pyrates" at all.

But the 1985 useage does indeed have "pirated":

We granted certiorari to resolve an apparent conflict among the Circuits 6 concerning the application of the statute to interstate shipments of bootleg and pirated sound recordings and motion pictures whose unauthorized distribution infringed valid copyrights. 469 U.S. 1157 (1985).

I still maintain that "piracy" is a bad term for copyright infringement, despite its use by copyright holders that started during my lifetime. Its use is as self-serving as the hijacking of the word "gay" by homosexuals (half of whom illogically attempt suicide) was. I have surrendered on that issue; "gay" has ironically become a pejorative used by youth. But it pales beside equating copyright infringement to murder and mayhem.

I don't call people who infringe my copyrights (and I have hundreds, two of which are registered) "pirates". I call them "plagiarists". How about we just expand the word "plagairism" to include any copyright infringement whether or not the infringer claims authorship (as they have with my work) and skip the childish "piracy" nonsense?

Uh, two problems.

1. OK, I missed the subtle "jab" at the KJV Only types, as I misinterpreted your statement. Given that you were responding to someone who was taking issue with the KJV Only types, it sounded as if your statement was a rebuttal.

2. I certainly don't think I'm the ONLY person to have ever suggested that KJV could have and did influence the translation. While I agree, it is quite difficult to unearth ANY scholarly work on the topic at all (other than re-interpretations of what has already been done) let alone documentation of the various changes/influence, I still don't think the idea is out of this world. I guess I can't understand why someone would find it implausible that King James I, who essentially thought that he, as King of England should also be head of the Church (and thus semi-divine), along with his "Chief Overseer" Archbishop Richard Bancroft who had an uncanny ability to rise through the ranks of the church and gain significant power/influence might have had vested interests in shaping how words/passages were interpreted. There are plenty of others who have researched this history and found it to be...well...suspect at the very best.

In short, ANY time there is a fundamentalist agenda (regardless of religious, social, governmental, etc) you can bet your ass that someone is shaping things to his/her favor in one way or another. I hate to be the wet blanket on the fire, but claiming that there is little room for argument as to the "authenticity" of the KJV (or really any version of what was an oral tradition for hundreds of years) is ridiculous. It's immaterial in the sense that it's up to the individual to decide what moves him/her spiritually, but to try to corroborate one's faith through "official" documents is probably missing the point.

This guy did pretty well, and managed it five times!

http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/sixwives.htm

Geoffrey Chaucer, father of English Literature.

True, but actually the effects of a large gunpowder explosion in the London of 1605 would likely be a lot more devastating than you, or the article, suggest.

It's from the stage play "A Man for All Seasons", which is about Sir Thomas More, a lawyer and intellectual of the 15th-16th centuries.

There have also been several movies made of it, including the Oscar-winning classic (recommended), and also a reasonably good TV movie starring Charlton Heston.

You, sir, are a Prince among men. Thank you.

Stefan.

Why is it we eat lots of herbivores (chickens, pigs, cows, etc), but we don't eat carnivores (dogs, cats, tigers, lions)? Is it because it doesn't seem "right", or because carnivores being higher up the food chain concentrate toxins?

The anti-carnivore taboo isn't nearly as universal as you think it is. Dogs are a part of many Asian cuisines, and there doesn't seem to be any associated health problem -- other than PETA death threats. Some popular food animals (inlcuding a couple you cite) are thought of as herbivores but are actually carnivores or ominvores -- Salmon, pigs.

Many Asian cultures seem to have a taboo, or at least some aversion, to eating draft animals. No obvious answer for that one. Then there's horsemeat -- popular in continental Europe, gross in English-speaking countries. Cuteness factor?

Health issues are often cited as a source of taboo, but that's hard to justify. The usual example is the tricinosis spread by pigs. But there are easier ways to prevent this disease -- like cooking thoroughly. Every animal food, even eggs, spreads diseases that can be controlled by cooking.

(Incidentally, the fact that pigs spread trich has more to do with the similarity between human and porcine physiology. It's quite striking. Pig embryoes are sometimes used in human anatomy classes. One 16th century scientist even though that humans evolved from pigs. I'd tell you his name, but I'd stand accused of a gratuitous pun.)

Taboos have a lot more to do with defining your cultural identity, and separating your own culture from others. Jewish culture (my own heritage) is full of bizarre prohibitions. No mixing meat and milk -- you even have to have separate containers and utensils for them. (Though somehow fish is not considered a meat!) No flicking a light switch on the sabbath. (Electricity is a kind of fire, and you can't light or douse a fire on the sabbath.) No consumption of any non-scaly aquatic life. (Salmon is OK, even though they're carnivores, but sturgeon is not.) It goes on and on.

My own pet theory about the pork taboo goes like this: many, many years ago, the ancestors of todays Jews and Arabs were nomadic peoples who had a free open life in the deserts and hills. They looked down upon (and occassionally conquered or pillaged) the agricultural peoples who spent their life mucking out a living in the various river basins. Clean noble nomads raise herd animals. Filthy peasants raise disgusting dirty pigs. And a taboo is born. Just a theory!