DRM = BAD

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Did you know that, because of that situation, the only people who could write and publish were either wealthy people or were kept by wealthy people? The advent of copyright actually helped to democratize the arts.

Enlightenment, 19th century nationalism and spread of literacy were the determinant features in the democratization of arts. Copyright's contribution while non-zero was most likely negligible for a long, long time.

The problem today is that something fit for earlier times does not fit the Internet age. I forgot the link, but one lawyer counted his IP infringements during a normal day at the office, and depending on law interpretation they could have gone as high up as about 150.

For example your e-mail is copyrighted by law, so if someone cc's it to someone else it's possible that person infringes copyright. Of course it depends on circumstances, but in theory that's the case. And as the recent spat between Cory Doctorow and Ursula Le Guin shows, it's unclear if fair use protects the unauthorized usage of "full text" however short

[Penforhire]

And how many xerox (heh, that USED to be a trademark and a name!) copies of copyrighted articles, book pages, and such float around every office on a daily basis? Doesn't make it right but it sure got easy after copiers were invented.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Enlightenment, 19th century nationalism and spread of literacy were the determinant features in the democratization of arts. Copyright's contribution while non-zero was most likely negligible for a long, long time.

They may have done more to spread it, but the Statute of Anne first gave authors ownership of their own works in Britain. Prior to that, the only avenue to publication was to sell all rights the printing monopoly. Everything afterward built on the premise that the creator held rights in the created work.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

They may have done more to spread it, but the Statute of Anne first gave authors ownership of their own works in Britain. Prior to that, the only avenue to publication was to sell all rights the printing monopoly. Everything afterward built on the premise that the creator held rights in the created work.

I'm not entirely sure how it worked, but in Shakespeare's time one could enter a record for a book into the "Stationer's Register" to assert ownership. It's the entry in that register which has, I believe, been important in dating many of S's plays. I believe that being registered gave an author certain rights, although it pre-dated the formal copyright law which appeared in the 1640s, some 20 years or so after S stopped writing.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

They may have done more to spread it, but the Statute of Anne first gave authors ownership of their own works in Britain. Prior to that, the only avenue to publication was to sell all rights the printing monopoly. Everything afterward built on the premise that the creator held rights in the created work.

I completely agree that a definite, law-enshrined ownership of works by their authors is very important, the problem is in balancing it with the needs of society. After all books are not written in a vacuum, but they are based on a common heritage.

I really am curious how things will play out, but I think that there will be a middle ground muddling through and books will continue to be written, music will continue to be composed and so on, while the famous nightmare drm scenario used by EFF to show where we are headed if DCMA?? (put your favorite Hollywood bought law in place) passes will be avoided too (forgot the link but it makes entertaining reading a la 1984 if you like such)