[1] https://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/commentary/uk_1557/uk_1...
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version :
> In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[7] a faction of [...]
> The translation was done by 6 panels of translators (47 men in all, most of whom were leading biblical scholars in England) who had the work divided up between them: the Old Testament was entrusted to three panels, the New Testament to two, and the Apocrypha to one.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin.
And they translated Hebrew "Kaneh Bosm" as "Calamus", a sweet cane that's not an active ingredient; and then copyrighted their work of men.
However, sometimes I think IETF is living in the past; it feels like they've missed the rise of platform economy within which also most of the censorship nowadays occur.
Also: the report dates to 2023 but the sources referenced are mostly from the 2010s. There are also a lot of questionable sources involved.
Copyright is censorship. The most widespread form of it. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in Westworld: "Doesn't look like anything to me."
2) Government explicit and implicit (bullshit "laws" and such) interference should have its own section
3) Domain name seizures: this could become a serious issue worldwide. See https://reclaimthenet.org/new-proposals-would-let-government...
It makes sense to criminalize stated threats of violence or persistent targeted harassment, but generally free societies should err on the side of not criminalizing speech if possible.