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."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: remix, thomas jefferson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thed issue however is not the legality of what he did - but rather its derivative nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.redditpics.com/and-this-reddit-is-why-we-dont-fuck-with-pirate,404771/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible#Publication_history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remix?
TJ was the original atheist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Remix?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Good" is the operative word...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Good" is the operative word...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If micropenis wants to refer to Masnick as "chubby", let him do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would look great on a Rockstar's Tea Shirt (hehe)
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, with that we have a winner.
Well played sir.
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
Editors would be pissed. Remixers as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KJ Bible
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: KJ Bible
Heaven forbid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: KJ Bible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA Lullaby
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The word of whom?
AFAIK, the bible was written by humans - as were all other religious texts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't want to contribute to something non-productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully it will stay that way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hang on, when did the pope get married?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was all downhill from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, I forgot to blame parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moderated
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Galambos on Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: more dissembling
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: more dissembling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No wonder ACTA is involving the fishery industry. We've got a generational organisation that believes bread and fish should be freely copied! Dastardly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]