Talk:Privileged presses

message: If the assertions on this page are true, they could be supported with references to the UK Statute Law Database (www.statutelaw.gov.uk) which contains (pretty much) the complete text of all in-force UK legislation. -Ian Jackson 21.8.2007
* Not everything is on SLD: in particular exercises of the royal prerogative not by statutory instrument are not on SLD. I agree that this page needs references but I think it's too early to dismiss it as "complete nonsense" out of hand. Google yielded papers on cam.ac.uk with references to a "Bible privilege", but unfortunately I don't actually have access to the text of those papers ... Colin Watson 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do the heathen rage?  Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, OUP, F.L. Cross, ed., 1974: "Privileged press."  Oxford Companion to Literature, 1964, as well.  "Complete nonsense?"  That only shows an empty head and an addiction to the world wide web.  This article once gave such as yourself information that would save them the agony of turning pages in a book.  Prod it by all means, though.  Utgard Loki 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added these and Bookandcoffee's as references to the page, thanks (though I couldn't find an ISBN for the Oxford Companion to Literature so I left that out for now). I've deleted the unreferenced template as a result. Colin Watson 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is complete nonsense 

message: "The Cambridge University Press charter from 1534 gives it the right to print "all manner of books," which means that the royal copyright is not excepted."
So how is any copyright not excepted? -- orthogonal 02:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What it meant was that, previously, only the crown had a special status.  The "all manner of books" cut into that (sloppy royal wording), but later copyright law was after the charter, and so when later copyright laws restricted, they were restricting from all previously with rights (which included CUP).  Not well explained, I know.  Geogre 03:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm with you.  It's not a stub.  Some people seem to toss that tag on any article shorter than a screen.  They need to lower their screen resolutions or read and consider carefully.  Geogre 03:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  earlier discussion 

message: I agree that short doesn’t equal stub, but I wouldn't mind seeing a picture of the "Letters patent", if such a thing is possible. There must be some history about this as well - things like tussles between CUP and OUP about whose letter is more important. Has there ever been a legal challenge to the concept? Has the privilege ever been abused? Do they still defend the right to publish the bible?--Bookandcoffee 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are great questions.  I would hope that the Short History of OUP might provide something along those lines.  I don't have access to any such with the library at hand, but I gather that there most emphatically was a problem, and a big one, in 1603-1611 and then 1645-1660, as Cambridge became "Dissenter's U" and Oxford "Cavalier U."  With the heat and venom expended on the Bishop's Bible, the Tyndale Bible, and the charter of James I, I think extending the Bible privilege in particular was a matter of high passion and low politics.  Utgard Loki 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe not a stub... but