> it was to protect publishers so they could profit from the work I don't see how protecting the publishers so they can profit from the work is any different

> it was to protect publishers so they could profit from the work I don't see how protecting the publishers so they can profit from the work is any different than encouraging things to be made in the first place. In a world with no big companies publishing and no copyright, the introduction of copyright allows authors to restrict copying and thus to get paid for their work. The introduction of publishers doesn't change this dynamic. It moves writing from something that's done either altruistically or through patronage into the realm of something you can do as a business. The people doing the printing get paid either way since they're charging you per page or per copy or whatever. They actually don't really care what the content is, how it's protected, etc. Their business model is predicated on real tangible things, namely paper and ink. Writing isn't predicated on the restriction of real tangible things so much as intangible ones; a book is much, much more about the information it contains than the actual paper or bits that make it up. Which is why copyright is considered intellectual property, not real property.