Talk:Donaldson v Becket

Untitled

It would be nice to have a full-text web link. I can't find one with Google like I usually can, and Findlaw etc. are just for American stuff. Anybody got a link? ejstheman 04:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It would also be nice for an article that has drawn such high plaudits if it would spell Becket consistently (and correctly) throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.194.165 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom did exist in 1774. The Articles of Union in 1707 between England/Wales and Scotland called it the "United Kingdom of Great Britain." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.237.177 (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It then became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.237.177 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please consider changing the entry heading to Donaldson v Becket

Donaldson v Becket is the preferred scholarly form—see, for example: Michael F. Suarez S.J., and H.R. Woudhuysen, Oxford Companion to the Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); William St Clair, The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); James Raven, The Business of Books: Booksellers and the English Book Trade (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007); Michael F. Suarez S.J., and Michael L. Turner, eds., The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: Volume V 1695–1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). --Iangadd (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. The article name should be changed to Becket. But I don't know how! Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.175.201.31 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jheald (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Significance

Contrary to the claim in the 'significance' section that the Lords rejected the notion of common law copyright in perpetuity, Burrow's report, as described here, states that a majority (7 to 4) of the Judges accepted that such a right had existed before the Statute of Anne, but decided that it had been abrogated by the Statute. Maybe there is some way of reconciling the two statements (e.g. Burrow got it wrong, or the body of the Lords effectively overruled the Judges), but the conflict should at least be dealt with.86.185.116.135 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.190.138 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article a bit, and hope that this is now all a bit more clear. Jheald (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)