MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

spellbanisher · 03-02-2011, 10:58 PM

It's very easy to date the origins of Copyright, 1709, the Statute of Anne, or in its full name, "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." Monopolies on publishing and permissions had existed hundreds of years before the Statute of Anne, and these institutions are often and mistakenly seen as the origins of copyright. Other institutions either benefited publishers at the expense of authors, or were forms of government censorship. The Statute of Anne vested the rights of creation in authors.

Before the Statute of Anne, publishers would hold a monopoly over a book they published for eternity. The statute of Anne limited a book publishers monopoly over a work to 14 years, after which the author would have exclusive rights over his work for another 14 years. The effect of these limited terms of exclusivity was to create a public domain. For a book to be copyrighted a copy had to be deposited in a University library, ensuring public access to works while they were still in copyright. It used to be a requirement in the U.S. that for any work to be copyrighted a copy had to be given to the Library of Congress for purposes of preservation. That requirement was waived when the U.S. adopted the Berne Convention, which eliminated any procedures for a work to be copyrighted. Under Berne, anything expressed in a tangible form is automatically copyrighted. That means anything you create, from an email to a text message to scribbles on a scrap of paper to a forum post, is copyrighted. The arguments for this is that you have universal natural rights to anything you create. Just as you would not need to undergo a procedure to have legal protection for a table you built or a blanket you sowed, you should not be burdened to obtain legal protection for your expression of ideas.

I won't go on, because this is a complex subject. If you want to read more you can read the books I have links to at the bottom of this post.

To sum up, copyright has been a very important institution for the creation of knowledge. By giving authors rights to their works it enabled them a chance to make a living off their creations, thereby freeing them of the limiting institution of patronage. As professionals they could write what they wanted and not what their patrons wanted. It also created a public domain and limited the power of publishers.

An interesting and relatively short read is Robert Darnton, my favorite historian. He doesn't exactly write about copyright, but he does write about books and the culture of information and access. You should probably read this first, because it is short and Darnton is a terrific and incisive writer. He also gives a brief history of publishing. Here is a link to one his articles at the New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ture-of-books/
Another article by Darnton about Information technology and culture:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...n-the-new-age/

You should also read Cory Doctorow's collection of essays at Feedbooks:

Doctorow has a plainspoken and direct style of writing and thinking. He is a science fiction author and at the forefront of the Creative Commons movement.He should be an enjoyable read.

http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2883/c...-of-the-future

Lawrence Lessig is a copyright lawyer, Stanford professor, and the creator of the Creative Commons Corporation. He was the lawyer who represented internet publisher Eric Eldred, who challenged the constitutionality of the Sonny Bonno Act.

http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2750/free-culture

I don't know who James boyle is, and I haven't read this book yet, but it looks interesting. It is called "The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind" available at Feedbooks for free: http://www.feedbooks.com/book/3471

You should also read the dissenting opinions of Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens in Eldred v Ashcroft, which are quite eloquent.

This is for Stephen Breyer, whose dissent was particularly impressive:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD1.html

This one is for John Paul Stevens:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD.html

03-02-2011, 10:58 PM	#619
spellbanisher Guru Posts: 826 Karma: 6566849 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Bay Area Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+	It's very easy to date the origins of Copyright, 1709, the Statute of Anne, or in its full name, "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." Monopolies on publishing and permissions had existed hundreds of years before the Statute of Anne, and these institutions are often and mistakenly seen as the origins of copyright. Other institutions either benefited publishers at the expense of authors, or were forms of government censorship. The Statute of Anne vested the rights of creation in authors. Before the Statute of Anne, publishers would hold a monopoly over a book they published for eternity. The statute of Anne limited a book publishers monopoly over a work to 14 years, after which the author would have exclusive rights over his work for another 14 years. The effect of these limited terms of exclusivity was to create a public domain. For a book to be copyrighted a copy had to be deposited in a University library, ensuring public access to works while they were still in copyright. It used to be a requirement in the U.S. that for any work to be copyrighted a copy had to be given to the Library of Congress for purposes of preservation. That requirement was waived when the U.S. adopted the Berne Convention, which eliminated any procedures for a work to be copyrighted. Under Berne, anything expressed in a tangible form is automatically copyrighted. That means anything you create, from an email to a text message to scribbles on a scrap of paper to a forum post, is copyrighted. The arguments for this is that you have universal natural rights to anything you create. Just as you would not need to undergo a procedure to have legal protection for a table you built or a blanket you sowed, you should not be burdened to obtain legal protection for your expression of ideas. I won't go on, because this is a complex subject. If you want to read more you can read the books I have links to at the bottom of this post. To sum up, copyright has been a very important institution for the creation of knowledge. By giving authors rights to their works it enabled them a chance to make a living off their creations, thereby freeing them of the limiting institution of patronage. As professionals they could write what they wanted and not what their patrons wanted. It also created a public domain and limited the power of publishers. An interesting and relatively short read is Robert Darnton, my favorite historian. He doesn't exactly write about copyright, but he does write about books and the culture of information and access. You should probably read this first, because it is short and Darnton is a terrific and incisive writer. He also gives a brief history of publishing. Here is a link to one his articles at the New York Review of Books: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ture-of-books/ Another article by Darnton about Information technology and culture: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...n-the-new-age/ You should also read Cory Doctorow's collection of essays at Feedbooks: Doctorow has a plainspoken and direct style of writing and thinking. He is a science fiction author and at the forefront of the Creative Commons movement.He should be an enjoyable read. http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2883/c...-of-the-future Lawrence Lessig is a copyright lawyer, Stanford professor, and the creator of the Creative Commons Corporation. He was the lawyer who represented internet publisher Eric Eldred, who challenged the constitutionality of the Sonny Bonno Act. http://www.feedbooks.com/book/2750/free-culture I don't know who James boyle is, and I haven't read this book yet, but it looks interesting. It is called "The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind" available at Feedbooks for free: http://www.feedbooks.com/book/3471 You should also read the dissenting opinions of Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens in Eldred v Ashcroft, which are quite eloquent. This is for Stephen Breyer, whose dissent was particularly impressive: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD1.html This one is for John Paul Stevens: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZD.html Last edited by spellbanisher; 03-02-2011 at 11:39 PM.