Copyright is Out of Sight

[spellbanisher]

The picture with the hood was alright, although you might have missed it. This pic reminds me of Lennie from "Of Mice and Men."

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

The picture with the hood was alright, although you might have missed it. This pic reminds me of Lennie from "Of Mice and Men."

You don't think that one was a bit "too much" as they say? I suppose I'll switch it back sometime then.

I found this passage from the Aeropagitica to be the most enlightening,

"What a collusion is this, whenas we are exhorted by the wise man to use diligence, to seek for wisdom as for hidden treasures early and late, that another order shall enjoin us to know nothing but by statute? When a man hath been labouring the hardest labour in the deep mines of knowledge, hath furnished out his findings in all their equipage: drawn forth his reasons as it were a battle ranged: scattered and defeated all objections in his way; calls out his adversary into the plain, offers him the advantage of wind and sun, if he please, only that he may try the matter by dint of argument: for his opponents then to skulk, to lay ambushments, to keep a narrow bridge of licensing where the challenger should pass, though it be valour enough in soldiership, is but weakness and cowardice in the wars of Truth."

My take on the passage,

Copyright and censorship amount to the same thing. Impediments to truth.

Thoughts?

[wyndslash]

hmm speaking of books and all that, i almost forgot i'll be borrowing a vonnegut book from the uni lib today. hardbound, of course. practically falling apart but still usable ;D

[spellbanisher]

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

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Another interesting 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. Here is a link to one his articles at the New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...ture-of-books/

Excellent post, puts the issue back into reality.

[wyndslash]

Yeah. I'll be sure to read those

[Giggleton]

@spellbanisher Just a quick response for now, I'll read those articles shortly.

But do you not agree with Milton's argument that the eternal and unshackled quest for knowledge is a good reason for the abolishment of copyright?

What I do not believe, what is impossible for me to ever believe is that humanity is so base as to disregard its artists so completely, to neglect to compensate them for their extremely worthwhile contributions to the species.

Artistic expression has thrived before copyright, it thrives under copyright, and it will thrive after copyright.

[spellbanisher]

Just quickly before I retire for the night, humans are only as good as their environment allows them to be. For thousands of years humans enslaved other humans. It was ordinary human beings who enabled the holocaust; Germans weren't monsters, but they did fall to vicious ideologies. Evil is quite ordinary. But that will be all for me tonight.

[Mortis]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Just quickly before I retire for the night, humans are only as good as their environment allows them to be. For thousands of years humans enslaved other humans. It was ordinary human beings who enabled the holocaust; Germans weren't monsters, but they did fall to vicious ideologies. Evil is quite ordinary. But that will be all for me tonight.

I hope you're not equating copyright to slavers and nazis, I don't think it is quite that bad.

I also reject the notion that copyright does anything to restrict knowledge, I think you're over reacting.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Mortis

I hope you're not equating copyright to slavers and nazis, I don't think it is quite that bad.

I also reject the notion that copyright does anything to restrict knowledge, I think you're over reacting.

The long walk from the darkness towards the light is ongoing and perhaps eternal.

It was ordinary human beings who,
"dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, a military base"
-Truman

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...710976,00.html

[Mortis]

Ok, but what exactly does the bombing of Japan have to do with copyright?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Mortis

Ok, but what exactly does the bombing of Japan have to do with copyright?

Well for starters, Hiroshima wasn't quite a military base, more like a major metropolitan area.

But perhaps if copyright is abolished, and knowledge is allowed to spread freely, as is its wont, then the horrors of the holocaust, the dropping of the atomic bomb, they might not occur again.

Are all struggles about resources? Then we should figure out how to spread resources better, how do we do that? Spread knowledge to everyone because maybe someone will figure it out.

Simple? or Too Simple?

[Mortis]

I think you are making your argument far to complicated. I think perhaps I truly am to stupid to grasp this.

[wyndslash]

@giggle: for me, as long as there are people who restrict other books from being on stock ("banned" books), then what does abolishing copyright do? gah, sorry if that didn't come out well...in a hurry here.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Mortis

Ok, but what exactly does the bombing of Japan have to do with copyright?

The only argument you could make is that having no copyright at all would be nuking creativity and destroying artists' livelihoods.