It certainly was not the first peaceful turn-over of power in history - there are many examples, but Cincinnatus[1] immediately sprang to my mind. He actually was given and then gave up dictatorial powers twice (note that being a dictator meant in the Roman political system something different than what it means today [2]).
Solon[1] is my favorite example, and how I think a benevolent ruler should act; Write a good constitution and take a step back. I think Juan Carlos of Spain did something similar: "Expected to continue Franco's legacy, Juan Carlos, however, soon after his accession introduced reforms to dismantle the Francoist regime and begin the Spanish transition to democracy" [2].
Cincinnatus is the most famous, but not even the first Roman dictator to give up power. He was however, the first one to do so from the generation which never lived under the Kings of Rome, and had first hand experience with long term dictatorial power.
He was also known to the early Americans, who respected him so much they named the city of Cincinnati after him.
Just a small clarification: in OE ð and þ were used interchangeably. Between voiced sounds they were pronounced as in Modern English "then", otherwise as in Modern English "thin".
The author puts encyclopedic knowledge and movies in the same category ("information") and seems to be arguing that they both should be freely available.
I'm not saying that current copyright system isn't completely screwed up and in need of reform, but I don't think disregarding content creators is an optimal solution.
There is a difference between the value of information and the price of that information.
Using value to determine undercompensation ignores that markets work on price, and often things of low intrinsic value are priced higher than others with high intrinsic value.
An encyclopedia with broad coverage clearly has greater intrinsic value than a Star Wars Blu-ray, yet the market has priced Star Wars Blu-rays as more expensive.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value. All value is subjective. Any item has no value unless an observer is present to value it. An, unsurprisingly, different observers will value the object differently, often wildly so.
Price is an extremely rough heuristic on the median or average valuation of an object. However, the majority can often be short-sighted at times, leading those who are looking more longer term to make statements like "the price doesn't reflect the intrinsic value of this thing". But even then, the big picture thinkers are of course assuming that the long view is the "correct view", when really, there is no single "correct view". How would one even go about attempting to define such a thing? It's all subjective.
Your point is a good one, though I'd say that calling it all subjective takes it too far.
If the outcome of long view -- ie, valuing education and information over watching star wars -- is less poverty, more self-reliance, the ability of a population to provide better for basic biological needs like food and water and shelter, then what you're really looking at isn't a subjective difference of value systems, but a question of delaying gratification.
That is, sure the price of "star wars" is higher because people would rather watch star wars most of the time than put in two hours towards, say, a 500-hour education project that's going to benefit them in the long run. Yet those same people would rather live in the future where they did have those skills.
In that sense, there is such a thing as intrinsic value, and its basis is shared human biology and universal needs. Asking what behaviors and choices ultimately provide for those needs can be objective, at least to a degree.
Would you say that the price to save a life equally matches the value of a life? Doesn't this show a disparity between the "market value" of something and its actual value?
Because the only possible way for a creator of information to survive off said creation is to use extremely invasive state institutions to compel the population into giving them a perpetual monopoly on distribution of said information.
There are plenty of ways to seek compensation for the creation of information, with only a minute subset of them requiring copyright monopoly to function.
Mine has been that contributors (authors, editors, performers, researchers, etc) increase information content, complexity. Kind of a information theoretic metaphor, not that I truly grok that discipline.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator