Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Right. In your eagerness to show me wrong, you aren't reading what I wrote. Your example is another example of the first type of copyright, a monarch giving a monopoly to a specific person for a specific work. It isn't a general granting of the control for all authors to the works which they author, which is the modern definition of copyright.
I also say that the first method was also used to generate revenue. It's right there in the post that you quote.
My initial premise is that the idea that works of art such as books and music are intellectual property which belongs to the creator of the work as a matter of course is historically not found outside of Europe. You haven't shown anything that challenges that premise. Your examples were of rulers asserting the right to control the copying of books themselves rather than a general assigning of such a right to the authors of the works.
|
In my example the rights were given to the author of the book, not the publisher/printer (It had nothing to do with an author's rights to control the publication of his writings, though sometimes there were specific grantings to specific authors for specific works they wrote --- you are actually contradicting yourself here).
As for your "initial premise", that was a rather belated premise which only appeared after I gave you an example of early Chinese copyright. Tou did not state in your original post. You were talking Chinese historically enjoying free, uninhibited copying.